THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DRUNK DRIVER ROADBLOCKS

The U.S. Supreme Court has not considered the constitutional propriety of DWI roadblocks. Some lower courts find that they impose unreasonable fourth amendment seizures, while others uphold such roadblocks when they embody specific protections against unnecessary invasions of privacy. In 1983, State supreme courts in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Kansas examined this issue. This article reviews these and other decisions on recent DWI roadblock cases. It then provides an analysis of a specific procedure for the development of a lawful DWI roadblock program.

• Availability:
  • Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/issn/00145688
• Corporate Authors:

  Federal Bureau of Investigation

  9th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
  Washington, DC  United States  20535
• Authors:
  • Campane Jr, J O
• Publication Date: 1984-7

Media Info

• Pagination: p. 24-31
• Serial:
  • FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
  • Volume: 53
  • Issue Number: 7
  • Publisher: Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • ISSN: 0014-5688

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Constitutional law; Courts; Drunk drivers; Drunk driving; Law enforcement; Legal action; Legal factors; Roadblocks; State laws
• Identifier Terms: U.S. Supreme Court
• Subject Areas: Highways; Law; Safety and Human Factors; Security and Emergencies; I10: Economics and Administration; I83: Accidents and the Human Factor;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00393829
• Record Type: Publication
• Source Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• Report/Paper Numbers: HS-037 677
• Files: HSL, TRIS, USDOT
• Created Date: May 31 1985 12:00AM