PEOPLE v. ALVARADO







Filed 2/7/11






_{CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION}

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. WALTER ALVARADO, Defendant and Appellant.	) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )	Case No. 6951 Super. Ct. No. 2404632
	)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco.
Kamala Harris and George Gascón, District Attorneys, and Louise Ogden, Assistant District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Christopher Gauger for Defendant and Appellant.


BY THE COURT:[1]

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Walter Alvarado, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress following his arrest at a DUI checkpoint. He had been charged with driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08%.
The issue before us is whether the People sustained their burden of proof in establishing the factors under Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 (Ingersoll). That case lists the factors governing whether a DUI checkpoint is operated in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 934 (Banks).)
While we only follow established law here, we write to address what appear to be repeated difficulties encountered by the People in making the record required to establish the legitimacy of these checkpoints.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The location of the checkpoint was decided by Captain Greg Coralles, although there was no evidence on the factors considered by the captain, who did not testify. The court did hear from a Sergeant Edgar Callejas, who testified that the location had been used as DUI checkpoint about four to six times previously, although he did not say why. The date of February 1, 2009, was chosen because it was â€