Michigan vs Sitz - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Andy Chrispen CJS 305.001 Michigan vs. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990) FACTS: In 1986 the Michigan Department of State Police established a sobriety checkpoint program. There would be checkpoints set up along state roads and everyone would be stopped to check their sobriety. If there were signs of intoxication, then they would be subject to a real stop. The first of these checkpoints was in Saginaw County. 126 vehicles passed through and two of them ended up being arrested. On the day before the checkpoint occurred, Sitz and other drivers filed a complaint. They said that they were regular drivers of Michigan and shouldn’t be subject to this. The court ruled that these checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the motion to appeal, so the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The trial court decided to use a three step process to decide this case. First they balanced the state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers. Second they balanced the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and finally they thought about the level of intrusion on an individual’s privacy caused by the checkpoints. This was the test used in Brown vs. Texas in 1979 and the Court of Appeals decided that was the right test to use in this case. The Court of Appeals found that the state has a grave and legitimate interest in curbing drunken driving; that sobriety checkpoint programs are generally ineffective and, therefore, do not significantly further that interest; and that the checkpoints’ subjective intrusion on individual liberties is substantial. OPINION: Rehnquist, C.J. along with White, J., O’Connor, J., Scalia, J., and Kennedy, J. 1. 2. 3. 4.

The checkpoint is a minimal stop The fact that the court said that it was wrong to put fear and surprise into drivers is wrong The test is effective as well, disagree with Court of Appeals The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed

DISSENT: Brennan, J. along with Marshall, J. 1. There is no suspicion needed for these checkpoints, so that is not right 2. The Fourth Amendment is designed to give the person a zone of privacy that can only be breached when reasonable DISSENT: Stevens, J. joined by Brennan, J. and Marshall, J. 1. A higher arrest rate could go to actual patrol instead of doing these checkpoints 2. Checkpoint states actually have a higher fatality rate a. Because of these last two points it seems like the Court is undervaluing the statistics 3. The police officer at a checkpoint has high discretion on who he or she wants to stop 4. Law abiding does not equal spotless 5. Unannounced investigatory seizures do not belong in our country 6. Patrol would get the arrests that checkpoints do...