Search and Seizure - Road Blocks

Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2003)

After a hit-and-run accident that occurred one week earlier, the police set up a roadblock to ask motorists if they knew anything about the accident. The Supreme Court held that this roadblock was permissible. Characterizing the “stop” as an informational checkpoint, the Court distinguished Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), because in that case, the vehicles were stopped for the purpose of investigating whether the occupants were engaged in criminal activity. In this case, in contrast, there was no intent to uncover crimes committed by the occupants of the stopped vehicles. The defendant in this case was convicted of DUI, because his state of inebriation was apparent when he was stopped.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

The Michigan State Police Department established a highway sobriety check point with guidelines governing check point operations, site selection and publicity. Significantly, uniformed officers stopped every vehicle which went through the check point. In cases where an officer detects signs of intoxication, the motorist is directed to a location out of the traffic flow where another officer checks the driver’s license and registration and, if warranted, conducts further sobriety tests. This program satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that detentions be reasonable.

United States v. Bowman, 496 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

There was insufficient evidence offered by the government that the roadblock was instituted for a legitimate motor vehicle related purpose. The testimony of one officer on the scene was not sufficient. The officer acknowledged that his “team” was involved in general crime prevention, focusing on guns and drugs.

United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2002)

The police set up a fake “drug interdiction” road block, alerting drivers that it was located farther down the highway. Between the location of the notice and the supposed checkpoint was an exit with no services for motorists. The police then stopped the cars that exited. The checkpoint in this case occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). The Eighth Circuit concluded that the fact that the defendant exited the highway after seeing a drug checkpoint sign, even when viewed in combination with other factors, was not a sufficient basis for stopping the vehicle.

United States v. Huguenin, 154 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 1998)

The police posted a sign that there was a DUI checkpoint 2 miles ahead. An exit was on the interstate just past this sign. The roadblock was actually set up at the exit – the officers believed that people who exited the interstate after seeing the signs were the people they wanted to intercept. But the real reason for the road block was to find drugs, not intoxicated drivers, as evidenced by the fact that there were no DUI detecting devices, but there was a drug dog and drug interdiction officers. The court concluded that the primary purpose for this roadblock was not to ensure the safety of the highways – that is, to intercept drunk drivers – but was to find people transporting drugs. This is not a lawful purpose for a roadblock and the evidence obtained after stopping the defendant’s vehicle should have been suppressed.

United States v. Maestas, 2 F.3d 1485 (10th Cir. 1993)

Even in the context of a lawful roadblock, the defendant may be able to establish that his arrest was pretextual. In order to establish an unlawful pretext arrest, the defendant must establish that the criteria set forth for conducting the roadblock were ignored or violated in some way. The defendant in this case, however, failed to meet this burden.

United States v. Morales-Zamora, 974 F.2d 149 (10th Cir. 1992)

While the roadblock purported to be a mere license and registration check, in fact, the police had a canine dog walk around and sniff at every stopped vehicle. This was an unlawful roadblock.