Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!harry
From: harry@ucbarpa
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks
Message-ID: <8933@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 03:47:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8933
Posted: Wed Jul 10 03:47:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:53:13 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 33

From: harry@ucbarpa (Harry I. Rubin)

To: net-legal@ucbvax
Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto
References: <979@homxa.UUCP> <3893@alice.UUCP> <3108@drutx.UUCP> <11358@brl-tgr.ARPA> <628@terak.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley

While visiting in Minneapolis last December and January,
I saw several TV news spots about the police setting up roadblocks
to screen for drunk drivers.  As I recall, there were two points
which made this acceptably legal:
(1) people were not forced to go through the checkpoints.  The locations
and times of the roadblocks were announced in advance (a day or two);
drivers who did not want to go through the roadblocks were free to take
alternate routes or not to drive at those times.
(2) to avoid discrimination, cars were stopped and drivers checked in a
very regular pattern, as every car or every fifth car.  This was to avoid
any possibility of personal bias, discrimination, or harassment by the
officers conducting the roadblock.

I'm not sure what the police thought about the first point, perhaps they
thought that drunks would be too befuddled to avoid the checkpoints.
Or perhaps they thought that most people wouldn't pay enough attention
to really avoid them.

I think these points were the position taken by the police and their
counsels; I don't think they had been tested in court, but I don't
remember for sure.

						Harry Rubin
						harry@Berkeley
						...!ucbvax!harry