Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

Media Items
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Thomas L. Casey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Stephen L. Nightingale (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)
Mark Granzotto (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
88-1897
Petitioner: 
Michigan Department of State Police
Respondent: 
Sitz
Opinion: 
496 U.S. 444 (1990)
Categories: 
fourth amendment, searches and seizures, criminal
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz , 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1897)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts.

Question: 

Did the drunk driving checkpoints violate motorists' privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan Department of State Police, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Marshall
Wrote a special concurrence
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court