Roadblocks

1. Roadblocks This is a seizure with little or no individualized suspicion; thus, the 4A question is when are such seizures “reasonable?”

2. A roadblock of which the purpose is to get drunk drivers off the roads is constitutional Michigan v. Sitz (1990) • Why? Because the state’s interest in getting drunk drivers off the roads >intrusion on motorists [= balancing test] • Roadblock advances that interest • The intrusion is brief, limited • The roadblock is systematic; does not rely on police discretion about whom to stop

3. Roadblock for the purpose of general crime control is unconstitutional Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) (re drug interdiction) • Why? Apparently because to investigate whether a particular individual is involved in criminal activity requires at least some individualized suspicion. • Remember that stopping a car = fourth amendment “seizure” • Terry: seizure requires reasonable suspicion

4. The Mode of Analysis for Roadblock: • Purpose Analysis and • Balancing Test

5. Purpose analysis

7. Balancing Test[from Brown v. Texas, 1979]

8. Factors to consider in balancing • To assess the severity of the intrusion on the individual’s fourth amendment right not to be unreasonably seized, consider: • The degree of police discretion about whom to stop [Stopping everyone versus random] • The degree of surprise and “suddenness” of the roadblock to the motorist • Length of delay • Clarity of identity of it as a police roadblock • Training and experience of the officers • Day or night • Public safety factor