Exception—Special Needs: Checkpoint Searches

Question 1

Michigan v. Sitz (1991)

Answer 1

HELD: Checkpoint program is consistent with the 4th am. because the balance of the state’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program

RULE: Detention beyond initial stop may require individual suspicion

Question 2

Illinois v. Lidster (2004)

Answer 2

RULE: Where a stop advances a grave public concern to a significant degree, and interferes only minimally with liberty the 4th am seeks to protect, it is constitutional

Question 3

Checkpoint HYPO’s

Answer 3

o HYPO: checkpoint for undocumented immigrants at border patrol? Upheld as constitutional
o HYPO: roving patrols (saturated an area with border patrol cars) overturned as intrusive.
♣ Vs. routine patrols—they’re allowed to drive around and if develop reasonable suspicion they can stop people. Difference here and the problem, is the saturation/the intensity of the police procedure.
o HYPO: checkpoint for license and registration. Upheld, OK if for a short period of time

Question 4

Checkpoints

Answer 4

Any time stopped by police= checkpoints are a seizure but can be deemed reasonable

Expectation of privacy in car is less than in home

Question 5

Edmond v. IN (2000)

Answer 5

HELD: unconstitutional - where they stopped every car for ordinary crime wrongdoing, no individualized suspicion about anyone car and lasted ~5 minutes