Roadblocks: Rationally Balanced or Intrinsically Intrusive
| Publication year | 2000 |
| Pages | 190 |
| Citation | Vol. 07 No. 2000 Pg. 190 |
July 2000, pg. 190. Roadblocks: Rationally Balanced or Intrinsically Intrusive
July 2000
Introduction
In response to the increasing public pressure to stop drunk drivers, local governments are resorting to roadblocks to detect and arrest motorists for operating under the influence. While these goals may be laudable, they must be balanced against the constitutional rights of all motorists. This article will review the use of sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks, challenges that are occurring nationally to roadblocks, and the continued viability of roadblocks in the State of Maine. Are roadblocks a rationally balanced technique for law enforcement or are they so intrinsically intrusive upon constitutional guarantees that they should be used only in the rarest of occurrences?
Federal Court Overview
The United States Supreme Court, in Delaware vs. Prouse, stated that suspicionless traffic stops might overcome a Fourth Amendment challenge so long as there is a systematic stopping of all vehicles.(Fn1) Several years later, the Court revisited the issue of roadblocks in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, upholding the constitutionality of such checkpoints.(Fn2) In Sitz, the Court permitted States that employ highway checkpoint stops minimize the officer's discretion by establishing guidelines for selecting checkpoint sites, times, duration of operation, providing that all motorists must be stopped, and specifying steps that must be taken if the initial examination raises suspicion that a driver was under the influence.(Fn3) The Court in Sitz drew upon the permanent Border Patrol checkpoint practice to apprehend illegal aliens to justify such police action; it need not be supported by individualized suspicion.(Fn4) In Sitz, the Court utilized the Brown v. Texas "balancing test" to conclude that the State of Michigan had an interest in preventing the damage caused by drunk drivers and that such damage outweighed the minimal intrusion occasioned by controlled and systematic roadblocks.(Fn5) The Court thus rejected the lower court's conclusion that late-night roadblocks engendered too much fear in law-abiding citizens and could not be permitted. The Court stated that the Brown test was the proper framework for the Constitutional analysis, rejecting a suggestion that its drug testing decision in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, required a special governmental need "beyond the normal need" for criminal law enforcement that must be shown in order for the "interest-balancing test" to be used.(Fn6)
While Sitz generally approved the constitutionality of alcohol related roadblocks as a law enforcement tool, the particular facts of any given roadblock may subject it to a Fourth Amendment challenge if initiated by field officers without supervisory input or guidelines, involves extensive delays, is especially intrusive, frightening, or conducted in an unsafe manner, or if the process amounts to a subterfuge to circumvent legitimate rights.(Fn7)
It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court in Sitz, referred to the following: "the circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roaving-patrol stop. Roaving-patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads. Where the approach of a patrol car may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion."(Fn8) In spite of the US Supreme Court's finding in Sitz, upon remand, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the Federal Court's approval for suspicionless stops was not consistent with the State's long tradition of requiring some level of particularized suspicion, and determined that the stop in question violated that State's constitution.(Fn9) Thus a review of state constitutional law may provide a basis for challenging roadblocks that are constitutional at the federal level.
That is not to say that federal courts will never permit a challenge on the particular facts to certain roadblock techniques. For example, the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Edmond v. Goldsmith, recently struck down an Indianapolis roadblock program which was specifically intended to catch drug offenders.(Fn10) The Edmond Court held that the reasonableness of a roadblock depends on its underlying purpose: the Court found it unconstitutional because the intent was to catch...
To continue reading
Request your trial