Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints set up by the state of Michigan to deter drunk driving. The case arose when a group of licensed drivers challenged the state's law and program, arguing that these checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Initially, lower courts ruled against the state program, but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld it by a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, asserted that the state's interest in preventing drunken driving justified the use of checkpoints, countering the lower courts' interpretations of previous relevant cases. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented, highlighting the ongoing debate about balancing public safety with individual rights. This case illustrates the complexities of legal interpretations concerning public policy and individual freedoms, as well as the varying perspectives within the judicial system regarding law enforcement practices.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Date: February 27, 1990
Citation: 496 U.S. 444
Issue: Search and seizure
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the use of drunken driving checkpoints under certain conditions.
A group of licensed drivers sued Michigan, challenging the constitutionality of a state law and program that set up drunken driving checkpoints designed to catch people driving under the influence. They argued that the checkpoints constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Lower courts ruled against the program, but by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan statute and program. The Court maintained that the lower courts had misread the relevant cases, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) and Brown v. Texas (1979). In the opinion for the Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed that Michigan had a legitimate interest in trying to curb drunken driving. Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred, and Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens dissented.