[timm22]

As I've noted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Court could curtail the abuses caused by its earlier ruling, without having to contradict it, by finding that DUI checkpoints are constitutional if and only if they are restricted to either (1) looking for people who are DUI, and (2) acting upon prima-facie plain-view evidence that a crime has been committed.

I wish the Supreme Court would take steps in the direction you describe. Of course, I believe the Supreme Court should reverse its position authorizing such checkpoints, as painful as it may be for them to reverse precedent.

[supercat]

Of course, I believe the Supreme Court should reverse its position authorizing such checkpoints, as painful as it may be for them to reverse precedent.

What was particularly outrageous in the precedent case was that rather than trying to rationalize a claim that the Fourth Amendment wasn't violated, it overtly stated that it didn't matter if it was. And I would agree that such a precedent needs to be overturned on principle as well as practice.

Nonetheless, narrowing the scope of what constitutes an allowable "DUI checkpoint" would be a good first step. That wouldn't resolve the whole issue, but would considerably reduce pressure on the Court to uphold its pro-checkpoint decision.

After all, if police decide they don't want to bother with checkpoints that comply with Constitutional rules, that would clear the way for the Court to decide that it had overestimated the exigency posed by drunk drivers.