It was a classic "balancing" opinion where they weigh the interests of the state versus the rights of the individual. The case in question seems to be Michigan vs Sitz : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz
Rehnquist, in the majority, argued that, yes, it infringes on the 4th Amendments rights of individuals, however he felt that the interest the State has in reducing drunken driving outweighs the (in his mind) minimal invasion on privacy for the driver. Justice Brennan, in the dissent, said that the Constitution does not provide Rehnquist with the opportunity to make that distinction: "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion" Rehnquist argued that the checkpoints were effective and necessary. Stevens, in the dissent, argued otherwise (and this speaks to Tim's point): "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." Court decided 6-3 to overturn the Michigan Supreme Court therefore and hold that the interests of the State in conducting it's job of providing for the safety of the people outweighs the incursion on the 4th Amendment rights of individuals who are stopped at checkpoints. By the way, 10 states (including Oregon where I live), have decided that checkpoints are a violation of protections in their state constitution. Cheers, Judah On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:55 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. > > So why does the Supreme Court disagree?? I haven't read their ruling on why > they think checkpoints are legal. > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I agree with you that DUI is (and should be) a crime regardless of > whether > > there is an accident. Driving is a privilege and you've violated the > > compact you agreed to when getting your license if you drive under the > > influence. > > > > I strongly disagree, however, with any legal fishing expeditions that try > > to find guilt without probable cause. That covers DUI checkpoints, stop > and > > frisk, warrantless wiretapping...the list goes on and on. To me, it is a > > fundamental tenant of our society. I understand that others feel > > differently. > > > > Cheers, > > Judah > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I support basic rights. > > > > > > I don't think DUI checkpoints violate mine (or anyone else's) rights. > > > > > > Still bothered by Tim's implication that it is not a crime to drive > under > > > the influence until/unless there is an accident. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365404 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
