Utah DUI Checkpoints Need a Judge's Signature: The Written Plan Rule

Utah legislated checkpoints as their own scheme, the Administrative Traffic Checkpoint Act at Title 77, Chapter 23, Part 1, enacted by Chapter 72 of the 1992 General Session. Section 77-23-102(1) defines an administrative traffic checkpoint as a roadblock procedure where enforcement officers stop all, or a designated sequence of, motor vehicles and subject those vehicles to inspection or testing and the drivers or occupants to questioning or the production of documents.

Section 77-23-103 lists five circumstances in which a vehicle may be stopped and the occupants detained: a duly authorised search or arrest warrant, probable cause to arrest or search, reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring, emergency circumstances, and authority granted by a magistrate under Section 77-23-104. Section 77-23-102(3) defines emergency circumstances narrowly, as circumstances where officers reasonably believe road conditions, weather conditions, or persons present a significant hazard to persons or property. A checkpoint set up without one of those five footings has no statutory basis in Utah.

The magistrate route is the one that matters for a sobriety checkpoint, and it is demanding. Under Section 77-23-104(2)(a) the plan must be submitted and signed by a command level officer, which Section 77-23-102(2) defines as a sheriff, a head of a law enforcement agency, or a supervisory enforcement officer of sergeant rank or higher. The plan must describe the location with geographical and topographical detail, the date, time and duration, the sequence of traffic to be stopped, the purpose including the inspection or inquiry to be conducted, the minimum personnel and the rank of the officers in charge on scene, the configuration and location of signs and barriers, any advance public notice, and the instructions to be given to the officers working the checkpoint.

Subsection (2)(b) then requires the magistrate to make an independent judicial determination that the plan minimises the delay, minimises the intrusion of the inspection or inquiry, minimises the fear and anxiety the motorist will experience, minimises the discretion left to individual officers, and maximises safety for motorists and officers. Section 77-23-102(5) points to Subsection 77-1-3(4) for who counts as a magistrate.

Subsection (2)(c) is the newest layer, added by Chapter 34 of the 2023 General Session and effective 1 July 2023. It confines the primary purpose to four categories: drivers who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs; license plates, registration certificates, insurance certificates or driver licenses; violations of Title 23A, the Wildlife Resources Act; and other circumstances the magistrate can specifically distinguish from a general interest in crime control. That last clause writes the general-crime-control limit into Utah statute rather than leaving it to case law.

Two further sections shape what a driver sees. Section 77-23-104.5, enacted by Chapter 168 of the 2001 General Session, bars an enforcement officer from displaying a sign that notifies motorists of an administrative traffic checkpoint unless the checkpoint is actually operating under a magistrate's authority, so a bluff checkpoint sign is prohibited. And Section 77-23-104(5) requires each participating officer to conform their activities as nearly as practicable to the procedures in the plan, which is the hook for arguing that a checkpoint departed from what the magistrate approved.

At the checkpoint itself, Utah's driving-under-the-influence threshold is the country's lowest. Section 41-6a-502(1)(a) and (c) set it at a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.05 grams or greater, and Subsection (2)(a) makes a first violation a class B misdemeanor, rising to a class A misdemeanor under Subsection (2)(b) where there is a passenger under 16 in the vehicle, a driver aged 21 or over with a passenger under 18, certain accompanying traffic violations, or one prior conviction within 10 years.

Section 77-23-105 makes it a class B misdemeanor to intentionally and knowingly pass, without stopping as required, an administrative traffic checkpoint operated under a magistrate's authority. Note the qualifier: the offense is tied to a checkpoint operating under Section 77-23-104 authority, so an unauthorised checkpoint carries no failure-to-stop crime. A class B misdemeanor draws up to six months under Section 76-3-204(2) and a fine of up to $1,000 under Section 76-3-301(1)(d). A driver who believes a checkpoint was not properly authorised should first use Section 77-23-104(6), which requires the command level officer to be available to exhibit a copy of the plan and the signed authorisation to any motorist stopped at the checkpoint who asks for it, and then raise the point in a suppression motion.

05 threshold and the aggravating factors in Subsection (2). Refusing to stop for a lawful checkpoint can also draw failure to stop at the command of a peace officer under Section 41-6a-210 where a vehicle is involved.