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