Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-622 (2026)
Minimum requirements.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Minimum requirements.
For the purpose of warning and protecting the traveling public, the minimum requirements to be met by such officers establishing temporary road blocks, if time and circumstances allow, are:
1. The temporary road block must be established at a point on the highway or street clearly visible at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.
2. At the point of the temporary road block, a sign shall be placed on the center line of the highway or street displaying the word "stop" in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards, in both directions, either in daytime or darkness.
3. At the same point of the temporary road block, at least one (1) blue light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway or street which shall be a flashing or intermittent beam of light, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic, at a distance of not less than 100 yards.
4. At a distance of not less than 200 yards from the point of the temporary road block, warning signs must be placed at the side of the highway or street, containing any wording of sufficient size and luminosity, to warn the oncoming traffic that a "police stop" lies ahead. A burning beam light, flare or reflector must be placed near such signs for the purpose of attracting the attention of the traffic to the sign.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: State v. Gascon, 812 P.2d 239 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Gascon, 812 P.2d 239 (Idaho 1991). “Gascon argues further that the roadblock did not comply with the statutory requirements of I.C. § 19-622. This argument is not persuasive.”
State v. Gascon, 811 P.2d 1103 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). “While Gascon challenged certain actions of the officers in attempting to show that operation of the roadblock was constitutionally “unreasonable,” in the trial court he did not argue that the roadblock was unreasonable due to the failure of the officers to comply fully with I.C.…”
Tanner v. Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game (D. Idaho 2020). “o given the following allegation in his Amended Complaint: Defendants Swanson, Stanley and Johnson, under the color of law, operated the roadblocks on a sharp comer of Meadow Creak Road in an unsafe and dangerous way that violated the state and federal laws as to proper signage,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.