Are Sobriety Checkpoints Legal?

As many people know, the Fourth Amendment of theimportant.
Constitution of the United States forbids theTo some, it seems that the Court has simply carved
unreasonable search or seizure of U.S. citizens.out of the Constitution another exception, similar to the
Generally, there must be probable cause to arrest orone for exigent circumstances, for sobriety
search persons or their private property, which meanscheckpoints. DUI defense attorneys often refer to this
that the officer must have a reasonable suspicionas "the DUI exception to the Constitution." Critics and
based on articulable facts that some wrongdoing hasdissenting justices have pointed out that the Fourth
occurred. How, then, are law enforcement agents able,Amendment does not make exceptions. The only
constitutionally, to stop motorists at sobrietyquestion is whether the officer has probable cause to
checkpoints?stop the individual driver. Justice Brennan wrote, "That
According to constitutional law, some stops are notstopping every car might make it easier to prevent
considered seizures of a person. This is the case withdrunken driving...is an insufficient justification for
a so called "stop and frisk" in which an officer detainsabandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion."
a person for a very brief period of time and quicklyThe Court's justification for the exception rested on
checks their outer clothing for contraband. Sometimes,the assumption that DUI roadblocks are necessary
if a person is detained for less than 48 hours, it is notand effective. However, there is some controversy as
considered a seizure. However, this is not true for DUIto whether this is true. The National Highway Traffic
roadblocks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held thatand Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released
stopping someone at such a roadblock does constitutedata on alcohol-related deaths in 2003 and 2004.
a seizure of that person under the Fourth Amendment.There was a decline in such fatalities in 2004, and
One "however" further and the language of themost of the drop occurred in states that don't use
Constitution gets tangled up in the thicket ofsobriety checkpoints. Critics already concerned about
constitutional interpretation and case law. Thethe large outlay of resources required to operate
Supreme Court could have claimed that these stopscheckpoints are doubly concerned if spending the
without probable cause are constitutional under theresources does not even necessarily prevent DUI
doctrine of exigent circumstances. The Court hasoffenses.
repeatedly held that when an officer believes evidenceOn the other hand, law enforcement agents believe
is about to be destroyed, he can perform a searchthat checkpoints are effective even if intoxicated
without a warrant. However, this doctrine seems onlydrivers get around them because they spread the
to apply to searches. Instead, it appears as though themessage that driving under the influence is not
Court used a balancing test, common in other areas oftolerated. Officers often provide informational
constitutional law, whereby the "minimal intrusion onpamphlets to motorists stopped at checkpoints,
individual liberties" was weighed against the need forexplaining the consequences of drunk driving, which
and efficacy of roadblocks and found to be lessmay have a deterrent effect.