No, these checkpoints are constitutional. We balanced three things: the problem, the solution, and the hassle. First, the problem of drunk driving is huge and deadly. Second, the hassle for sober drivers is tiny—a stop of less than 30 seconds is not a big deal. Third, the checkpoints are a reasonable way to help solve the problem. It's not our job as judges to tell police the absolute best way to do their jobs, only if the way they choose is reasonable. The balance here is in favor of the police.

Yes, this is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from being stopped by the police for no reason. Normally, police need to have some suspicion that you're doing something wrong before they can seize you. The court is creating a big exception here just because the stop is short, which is a dangerous mistake that could let the police bother people whenever they want.

Yes, this is definitely unconstitutional. Being surprised by a police roadblock at night is scary and a much bigger deal than the court claims. More importantly, the state didn't even prove these checkpoints work well. They stopped over 100 people just to make one arrest. This seems less like effective policing and more like a publicity stunt to scare people into driving sober. You can't violate people's rights just to 'send a message.'

I agree with the outcome. I'm not getting into the legal details, but I want to say that drunk driving is a national tragedy that kills more people than wars. I'm glad the court is finally taking this 'slaughter on the highways' seriously.

Yes, stopping cars at checkpoints counts as a 'seizure' under the Constitution. But, these sobriety checkpoints help prevent the big problem of drunk driving, so that makes them okay. They don't bother drivers too much, since the stops are short. The police don't have to prove the checkpoints work really well - it's their choice how to enforce the law. All in all, the benefits of preventing drunk driving are more important than the small inconvenience to drivers.

I disagree. I think the Court isn't giving enough importance to how much these surprise checkpoints bother people. Usually, police need a good reason to stop and question someone. By saying police don't need any reason at all to stop drivers at these checkpoints, the Court is allowing police to potentially harass people. The Constitution is supposed to prevent that.

I also disagree. The Court is giving too much power to the police here and not enough protection to regular people just going about their lives. The evidence shows these checkpoints don't catch many drunk drivers - definitely not enough to make up for stopping and bothering lots of innocent people. We have always said police can't just randomly stop people to investigate them without a good reason. I think that's what the Court is allowing here, and that's wrong.

I agree with the outcome only. I definitely agree that drunk driving is a huge, tragic problem. I've been saying that for almost 20 years. I'm glad the Court is finally realizing how bad it is. But I'm not adding anything else to the legal discussion.

No, it does not go against the Constitution for the police to stop all cars at checkpoints to see if the drivers are drunk. Stopping cars at checkpoints counts as a 'seizure' under the Constitution. But, these sobriety checkpoints help prevent the big problem of drunk driving, so that makes them okay. They don't bother drivers too much, since the stops are short. The police don't have to prove the checkpoints work really well - it's their choice how to enforce the law. All in all, the benefits of preventing drunk driving are more important than the small inconvenience to drivers.

Yes, these checkpoints go against the Constitution. I disagree. I think the Court isn't giving enough importance to how much these surprise checkpoints bother people. Usually, police need a good reason to stop and question someone. By saying police don't need any reason at all to stop drivers at these checkpoints, the Court is allowing police to potentially harass people. The Constitution is supposed to prevent that.

Yes, these checkpoints go against the Constitution. I also disagree. The Court is giving too much power to the police here and not enough protection to regular people just going about their lives. The evidence shows these checkpoints don't catch many drunk drivers - definitely not enough to make up for stopping and bothering lots of innocent people. We have always said police can't just randomly stop people to investigate them without a good reason. I think that's what the Court is allowing here, and that's wrong.

No, it does not go against the Constitution to stop all cars at a checkpoint to see if the drivers are drunk. I agree with the outcome only. I definitely agree that drunk driving is a huge, tragic problem. I've been saying that for almost 20 years. I'm glad the Court is finally realizing how bad it is. But I'm not adding anything else to the legal discussion.

Under the latter exception, the United States Supreme Court, balancing the public interest in preventing drunk driving against the Fourth Amendment interest of the individual, has held that a roadblock designed to check for intoxicated drivers is not violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court has recognized numerous circumstances in which special governmental needs justify searches without the need for individualized suspicion, warrants, and probable cause.

In Sitz, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint that examined all drivers passing through for signs of intoxication.

—the Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment " `seizure'occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. "

But for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers.

No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it

T] he balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program

—the Michigan State Police established a sobriety-checkpoint pilot program that set forth numerous guidelines governing checkpoint operations, site selection, and publicity.

The high court explained that it was addressing only the checkpoint situation in which all motorists must stop for a few seconds and that "[d] etention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard

No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem.... `Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000 and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries

No. The state's use of highway sobriety checkpoints does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the program in advancing that interest, and the minimal degree of intrusion upon individual motorists weighs in favor of the program. The Court applied the three-prong balancing test from *Brown v. Texas*. First, the state has a grave interest in eradicating the immense problem of drunk driving. Second, the intrusion on motorists is slight; the 'objective' intrusion of a 25-second stop is minimal, and the 'subjective' intrusion of fear or surprise is lessened by the visible signs of official authority and the systematic nature of the stop, making it distinct from a roving patrol. Third, the program is a sufficiently effective means of advancing this interest, and the choice among reasonable law enforcement techniques belongs to politically accountable officials, not the judiciary. The 1.6% arrest rate at the checkpoint was deemed effective for constitutional purposes.

Yes. The checkpoint program violates the Fourth Amendment because it dispenses with the core constitutional requirement of individualized suspicion. The majority misapplies the balancing test; such a test is only appropriate for seizures that are 'substantially less intrusive' than an arrest, but the minimal nature of the intrusion should begin, not end, the inquiry. Unlike in *United States v. Martinez-Fuerte*, where detecting illegal aliens in heavy traffic without checkpoints was impractical, the state has not shown a similar difficulty in detecting drunk drivers that would justify abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion. By permitting suspicionless seizures of the general public, the Court exposes citizens to the risk of arbitrary and harassing police conduct.

Yes. The checkpoint program is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment because the Court undervalues the intrusion on citizens and overvalues the program's effectiveness. The intrusion is not minimal; unlike the permanent, fixed checkpoints upheld in *Martinez-Fuerte*, these are temporary, unannounced stops that rely on surprise, causing distress and anxiety for law-abiding drivers. Furthermore, the program's effectiveness is 'infinitesimal,' as there is no evidence that the checkpoints produce more arrests than would be achieved by using the same police resources on conventional patrols. The state's actual goal is deterrence through publicity, which amounts to using the impairment of individual liberties as a symbolic gesture, an unacceptable justification for an otherwise unreasonable seizure.

This opinion concurs in the judgment only, without engaging in the Fourth Amendment analysis. The author writes separately to emphasize the horrific scale of drunk driving fatalities, describing the 'slaughter on our highways' as a tragedy he has lamented for decades. He expresses pleasure that the Court is finally stressing this grave public danger, implying this interest justifies the state's action.

Yes, a seizure occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. However, the sobriety checkpoints serve the state's legitimate and substantial interest in preventing drunk driving, which outweighs the minimal intrusion on motorists who are stopped briefly at the checkpoints. The effectiveness of the checkpoints does not need to be proven with empirical evidence, as the choice among reasonable law enforcement techniques remains with politically accountable officials. On balance, the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoint program. However, detention of particular motorists for more extensive sobriety testing may require individualized suspicion.

I dissent because the Court misapplies the balancing test by undervaluing the nature of the intrusion and exaggerating the law enforcement need to use the roadblocks. The majority opinion creates the impression that the Court generally engages in a balancing test to determine the constitutionality of all seizures. But in most cases, the police must possess probable cause for a seizure to be judged reasonable. By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police. Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action.

I believe the Court overvalues the law enforcement interest in using sobriety checkpoints, undervalues the citizen's interest in freedom from random, unannounced investigatory seizures, and mistakenly assumes that there is 'virtually no difference' between a routine stop at a permanent, fixed checkpoint and a surprise stop at a sobriety checkpoint. The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. The Court also places a heavy thumb on the scale of the law enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. The Court ignores the fact that the record here shows only a handful of arrests which would be more easily obtained without resort to suspicionless seizures of hundreds of innocent citizens. I believe this case is controlled by our several precedents condemning suspicionless random stops of motorists for investigatory purposes.

I concur only in the judgment. I fully agree with the Court's lamentations about the slaughter on our highways and about the dangers posed to almost everyone by the driver who is under the influence of alcohol or other drug. I add this comment only to remind the Court that it has been almost 20 years since I noted that the 'slaughter on the highways of this Nation exceeds the death toll of all our wars,' and that I detected 'little genuine public concern about what takes place in our very midst and on our daily travel routes.' I am pleased, of course, that the Court is now stressing this tragic aspect of American life.

No, a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints does not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A seizure occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. However, the sobriety checkpoints serve the state's legitimate and substantial interest in preventing drunk driving, which outweighs the minimal intrusion on motorists who are stopped briefly at the checkpoints. The effectiveness of the checkpoints does not need to be proven with empirical evidence, as the choice among reasonable law enforcement techniques remains with politically accountable officials. On balance, the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoint program. However, detention of particular motorists for more extensive sobriety testing may require individualized suspicion.

Yes, a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. I dissent because the Court misapplies the balancing test by undervaluing the nature of the intrusion and exaggerating the law enforcement need to use the roadblocks. The majority opinion creates the impression that the Court generally engages in a balancing test to determine the constitutionality of all seizures. But in most cases, the police must possess probable cause for a seizure to be judged reasonable. By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police. Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action.

Yes, a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. I believe the Court overvalues the law enforcement interest in using sobriety checkpoints, undervalues the citizen's interest in freedom from random, unannounced investigatory seizures, and mistakenly assumes that there is 'virtually no difference' between a routine stop at a permanent, fixed checkpoint and a surprise stop at a sobriety checkpoint. The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. The Court also places a heavy thumb on the scale of the law enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. The Court ignores the fact that the record here shows only a handful of arrests which would be more easily obtained without resort to suspicionless seizures of hundreds of innocent citizens. I believe this case is controlled by our several precedents condemning suspicionless random stops of motorists for investigatory purposes.

No, a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints does not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. I concur only in the judgment. I fully agree with the Court's lamentations about the slaughter on our highways and about the dangers posed to almost everyone by the driver who is under the influence of alcohol or other drug. I add this comment only to remind the Court that it has been almost 20 years since I noted that the 'slaughter on the highways of this Nation exceeds the death toll of all our wars,' and that I detected 'little genuine public concern about what takes place in our very midst and on our daily travel routes.' I am pleased, of course, that the Court is now stressing this tragic aspect of American life.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot