Police of Use Checkpoints Searching for Drunk Drivers in the United States: A Balance between Police Functions and Individual Rights

Abstract

Drunk driving and its associated fatalities or injuries increasingly call for the police to take action in combating this epidemic problem in American society. Many states have either created or revised the anti-drunk-driving laws and now authorize the police to implement sobriety checkpoints to detect drunk drivers since the U.S. Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). Some law enforcement agencies apply the analogy of sobriety checkpoint to serve for other law enforcement purposes such as interdicting drug violations. The implementation of drug checkpoints for detecting drug violations undoubtedly invokes the debate on the constitutional balance between the need for law and order and an individual's rights to freedom and privacy. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of City of Indianapolis et al. v. Edmond et al. (2000), ruled that the drug checkpoints were unconstitutional because the primary purpose of the checkpoints was to detect drug violations which were constituted as unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, failed to provide specific guidelines for the police to implement checkpoint stops and searches. The debate on the legality of checkpoint stops and searches reflects the delicate balance between constitutionally protected rights and legitimated law enforcement functions and the complexity of jurisprudence in American society.