NCJ Number
101109
Journal
Iowa Law Review Volume: 71 Issue: 2 Dated: (January 1986) Pages: 577-607
Date Published
1986
Length
31 pages
Annotation
This note analyzes the constitutionality of driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) roadblock seizures in terms of fourth amendment case precedents limiting suspicionless seizures.
Abstract
To prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by law enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals, the fourth amendment's reasonableness clause imposes limits on the Government's power to search and seize. To date, State courts have been divided on the constitutionality of DWI roadblocks. In those States where they have been held constitutional, decisions have emphasized the State's interests in traffic safety, DWI deterrence, and the fact that such roadblocks are discretionless. However, available empirical evidence indicates that roadblocks are no more effective in detecting and deterring DWI than are conventional law enforcement practices. Further, they may contribute to the mistaken apprehension of innocent motorists, cause inconvenience and delay, and actually increase the likelihood of vehicular accidents. Finally, aggressive observational law enforcement programs provide a less intrusive and equally effective means for enforcing DWI laws. When this minimal State interest in DWI roadblocks is balanced against a substantial to moderate fourth amendment intrusion, the scale should tip in favor of the individual's interests, and DWI roadblocks should be found unreasonable and unconstitutional. 183 notes.