Court Case: MI Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
In the year 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that police may legally establish and utilize things known as police sobriety checkpoints or DUI checkpoints (DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence) with the stated intent of catching and prosecuting drunk drivers. The Supreme Court decided that state governments have an interest in public safety to stop drunk driving, and that this technique was specifically related to achieving that goal. They also decided that the hassle and degree of invasion on the drivers' fourth amendment rights were negligible and that it was worth it to invade these rights in the name of public safety. The Court applied a three part balancing test which was created in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte and using this, they found that the checkpoint was constitutional. This three part test includes 1.) the states interest in law enforcement 2.) the effectiveness of the program in achieving the stated goal 3.) the level of intrusion on an individuals privacy. However, the problem with this case isn't whether or not it passes the test but that the test they used to determine constitutionality is irrelevant and weighs in factors which have nothing to do with the amendment itself. When determining constitutionality, outside interests or factors shall by definition have nothing to do with the final decision. This is supported by the definition of the word 'constitutionality' meaning "the state of being allowed by or in agreement with a constitution" (Webster). The definition mentions nothing of outside interests or factors, therefore, they should not be considered. In the majority opinion for this case written by Justice William Rehnquist, it states " United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 -- which utilized a balancing test in upholding checkpoints for detecting illegal aliens -- and Brown v. Texas, supra, are the relevant authorities to be used in evaluating the constitutionality of the State's program. Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, was not designed to repudiate this Court's prior cases dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways and, thus, does not forbid the use of a balancing test here." (Rehnquist 446). This proves that this test was used, and by expansion, your rights have been ignored by the Supreme Court in favor of the States interest. After this case, with the help of the internet, some people have taken it upon themselves to spread the word about these injustices. Many have gone to actual DUI checkpoints and have recorded themselves exercising their 4th and 5th amendment rights. They usually ask questions like "am I being detained?" since police need probable cause to detain you and usually refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present. Afterwords, they will upload the film to Youtube in an effort to inform others about what is going on. This scenario can play out many different ways depending on the officer and the person going through the checkpoint. Sometimes they will simply let them go when they realize they cannot charge the driver with anything and sometimes the driver will be forcibly removed from the car and they will search the car with a dog. The internet has been a great way for information about these injustices to spread and has influenced more people to stand up for their rights as citizens.