The first example is a DUI checkpoint. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sobriety checkpoints were reasonable and the California Supreme Court established some recommended guidelines for the setting up of DUI checkpoints in Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 P.2d. 1299 (1987) which included the neutral application of the checkpoint, reasonable location, and advanced public notice, among others. Another example where a vehicle stop without the benefit of reasonable suspicion would be permissible is a checkpoint to obtain information about a recent crime that occurred in the area. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004) that the checkpoint was reasonable based on the issue of public safety, provided the stop only minimally interfered with a person’s liberty. This ruling was partially based on the concept that law enforcement is permitted to seek public help in the investigation of a
The first example is a DUI checkpoint. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sobriety checkpoints were reasonable and the California Supreme Court established some recommended guidelines for the setting up of DUI checkpoints in Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 P.2d. 1299 (1987) which included the neutral application of the checkpoint, reasonable location, and advanced public notice, among others. Another example where a vehicle stop without the benefit of reasonable suspicion would be permissible is a checkpoint to obtain information about a recent crime that occurred in the area. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004) that the checkpoint was reasonable based on the issue of public safety, provided the stop only minimally interfered with a person’s liberty. This ruling was partially based on the concept that law enforcement is permitted to seek public help in the investigation of a