It is written in the Constitution that police officers have no legal right to stop and search someone without the presence of facts that indicate possible criminal actions. The question that this then brings up is why DUI roadblocks do just that. There has in fact been a case wherein the Michigan Supreme Court deemed such roadblocks illegal. In an overwhelming decision however, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that DUI roadblocks were in fact permissible. Permissible maybe but hardly constitutional, for while Chief Justice Rehnquist did admit that DUI roadblocks can be defined as a “seizure” under the terms of the 4th Amendment-and therefore illegal-he considered it a minor issue and that the incidences of drunk driving on the nation’s roads warranted the reversal of the Michigan Supreme Court decision. Rehnquist went so far as to say that this only constituted a minimal intrusion on liberties, and that the need to address drunk driving concerns far outweighed the need for these roadblocks.

What Rehnquist is in effect saying is that the benefits of the end result weigh far heavier than the means, whether or not they are illegal! Many justices however were quick to point out that the Constitution is not subject to such exceptions, and that the overriding concern is whether or not police officers have a justifiable reason to detain and investigate suspected drunk drivers. Justice Brennan has stated that while the detention and investigation every single car on the road will no doubt lessen the incidences of drunk driving, it does not make enough of a case to disregard individual civil liberties. Brennan goes on to say that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was disturbing in its apparent disregard for the protection of citizens from baseless investigation and detention.

With the stand of Rehnquist in justifying the disregarding of Constitution based on the supposition that these roadblocks were effective deterrents to drunk driving, the question that this brings up is are they really? Justice Stevens for his part has stated that the Michigan Supreme Court already studied numerous statistics on the DUI checkpoints prior to making their decision, and the results were that the benefits of these roadblocks were in fact insignificant and possibly even detrimental. The case was subsequently returned to the Michigan Supreme Court with the expectation that they would rule in favor of the roadblocks. In a surprising move however, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that while DUI roadblocks were allowed under the U.S. Constitution, they were illegal under THEIR constitution. They subsequently ruled in favor of the defendant, and Washington has since adopted Michigan’s rulings on the checkpoints.