Carmella Iacovetta
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
Facts:
The state police of Michigan and its director set up a sobriety checkpoint with the sole intent of catching intoxicated drivers. An advisory committee was created that set up guidelines with well-defined procedures. A state road was selected for the pilot checkpoint. The guidelines stipulated that if the driver appeared to be intoxicated, an officer would pull them from the flow and check their license and registration. If warranted, further tests would be administered. If there was no signs of intoxication, drivers would proceed on their way. The checkpoint began slightly after midnight, and ran approximately one hour and fifteen minutes in length, with …show more content…
Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) Drug testing is not a violation with some jobs.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) An officer cannot make an arrest if someone will not show them their identification when there is no reasonable suspicion.
Holding:
The Court voted in favor of the police citing random sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
Drunk driving has caused many deaths, and they have not stopped regardless of how many laws have been passed. Thus, harsh penalties are needs to deter this problem. Random sobriety checkpoints late at night seem to be a reasonable way to catch drivers unwilling to follow the laws of the road. The United States Border Patrol have found that having permanent checkpoints at the Mexican border an effective way to send a clear message, that illegally entering the United States will be monitored and there will be penalized United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Likewise having random checkpoints are a way to surprise motorist and catch those that endanger innocent victims that follow the law. While the border checkpoints are permanent, the sobriety are not, and they only penalize those that show the signs of intoxication and cause a minimal
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
Facts:
The state police of Michigan and its director set up a sobriety checkpoint with the sole intent of catching intoxicated drivers. An advisory committee was created that set up guidelines with well-defined procedures. A state road was selected for the pilot checkpoint. The guidelines stipulated that if the driver appeared to be intoxicated, an officer would pull them from the flow and check their license and registration. If warranted, further tests would be administered. If there was no signs of intoxication, drivers would proceed on their way. The checkpoint began slightly after midnight, and ran approximately one hour and fifteen minutes in length, with …show more content…
Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) Drug testing is not a violation with some jobs.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) An officer cannot make an arrest if someone will not show them their identification when there is no reasonable suspicion.
Holding:
The Court voted in favor of the police citing random sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
Drunk driving has caused many deaths, and they have not stopped regardless of how many laws have been passed. Thus, harsh penalties are needs to deter this problem. Random sobriety checkpoints late at night seem to be a reasonable way to catch drivers unwilling to follow the laws of the road. The United States Border Patrol have found that having permanent checkpoints at the Mexican border an effective way to send a clear message, that illegally entering the United States will be monitored and there will be penalized United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Likewise having random checkpoints are a way to surprise motorist and catch those that endanger innocent victims that follow the law. While the border checkpoints are permanent, the sobriety are not, and they only penalize those that show the signs of intoxication and cause a minimal