Chapter 11-Roadblocks Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 11-Roadblocks > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 11-Roadblocks Deck (11):
1

The practice of establishing roadblocks to detect people drinking and driving became popular among the police in the late:

1980s

2

sobriety checkpoints are constitutional

Michigan Dept of State Police v Sitz, 1990

3

Michigan State Police established a highway checkpoint prgram pusuant to guidlines established by who?

Checkpoint Advisory Committee. They govern checkpoint operations, site selection and publicity.

4

This Court used a balancing test to uphold checkpoints for detecting illegal aliens.

United States v Martinez-Fuerte, 1976
Court held that the state has a substantial interest in preventing illegal aliens from entering the US.
In Michigan Dept of State Police, Court held that this substantial interest, when balanced against the degree of intrusion placed on motorists passing thru checkpoint, supported the constitutionality of the procedure under the 4th.

5

Court in how many states have upheld sobriety checkpoints, while courts in 12 states had declared them unconstitutional.

21 states

6

By what vote, did the Supreme Court declare that police may establish hwy check points in effort to catch drunk drivers

6-3

7

Court in Sitz decided in favor of the state for three reasons

1. balance of the states interest in preventing drunk driving
2. extent to which sobriety checkpoints can reasonably be said to advance that state interest
3. minimal degree of intrusion upon individual motorists

8

highway checkpoints whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing violate the 4th

Indianapolis v Edmond, 2000

9

General rule in 4th Amend cases

search and seizures are unreasonable unless there is individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing . In roadblocks, there is no individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

10

Police checkpoints set up for the purpose of obtaining information from motorists about a hit-and-run accident are valid under the 4th

Illinois v Lidster, 2004

11

Court held that whether a roadblock is constitutional (given the absence of individualized suspicion that a person stopped committed a crime) are these:

1. the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure
2. the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest
3. the severity of the interference with individual liberty.