Commonwealth v. Menichino, 154 A.3d 797

On Sept. 26, 2014 the Hermitage Police Department set up a DUI checkpoint on the 2700 block of North Hermitage Road; Sgt. Brian Robinson coordinated the checkpoint.
Robinson relied on the department’s Alert File System showing 94 DUI arrests on State Route 18 (Hermitage Road) from Sept. 2011–Sept. 2014, and 430 DUI arrests in Hermitage overall. 22% of Hermitage DUIs were on State Route 18.
The Alert File System identified landmarks for some arrests; Robinson testified at least 44 of the 94 State Route 18 DUIs occurred on North Hermitage Road (the general area of the checkpoint), and two occurred at the specific Quaker Circle block where the checkpoint was placed.
The checkpoint employed posted signage, cones, at least two officers, and an objective rule that every vehicle would be stopped; Robinson had prior administrative approval and experience conducting checkpoints.
The suppression court granted Menichino’s motion to suppress evidence from the stop, reasoning the Commonwealth failed to show sufficient DUI arrests/accidents at the exact block of the checkpoint (only two), and declined to credit arrests elsewhere on North Hermitage Road. The Commonwealth appealed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Menichino's Argument	Held
Whether the checkpoint location satisfied the Tarbert/Blouse requirement that the chosen route be likely traveled by intoxicated drivers	The Commonwealth argued data showing 44 DUI arrests on North Hermitage Road (out of 94 on State Route 18) and 94 on the route generally sufficiently showed the area was likely to be traveled by intoxicated drivers	Menichino argued the Commonwealth must show DUI arrests/accidents at the specific block/location of the checkpoint (the 2700 block) and the Alert File showed only two such arrests there	The Superior Court held the relevant specificity is the area where the checkpoint is located (North Hermitage Road), not the exact block; the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient and suppression was erroneous

Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (establishes roadblock standards including that location be based on local experience of where intoxicated drivers travel)
Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (explains safeguards for constitutionally permissible DUI roadblocks)
Commonwealth v. Worthy, 957 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2008) (articulates five criteria for DUI checkpoints under Tarbert/Blouse)
Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997) (checkpoint invalidated where officer offered no evidence of DUI arrests/accidents at the specific route)
Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discusses required showing that checkpoint location is likely traversed by intoxicated drivers)
Commonwealth v. Ziegelmeier, 685 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 1996) (upholds checkpoint based on traffic volume and number of DUI arrests in the area)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 846 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (upholds checkpoint conducted "in the area of" a named road based on local DUI data)