## Facts

- A Michigan task force recommended sobriety checkpoints as a method to reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents.
- The Michigan Department of State Police created a sobriety checkpoint (“sobriety checklane”) pilot program with guidelines requiring stops of all vehicles at selected sites.
- Officers briefly screened drivers for signs of intoxication; drivers showing signs were diverted for license/registration checks and field sobriety testing, while others were promptly released.
- A test checkpoint operated around midnight with 19 officers, resulting in two drunk-driving arrests and stops of 124 other drivers.
- Michigan drivers and legislators sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the program involved warrantless, suspicionless seizures barred by the Fourth Amendment and by Michigan Constitution art. 1, § 11.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the checkpoint program under the Fourth Amendment and remanded, Michigan appellate courts addressed whether Michigan’s Constitution independently barred the program.

## Issues

1. Whether sobriety checkpoints that are permissible under the Fourth Amendment nonetheless violate Michigan Constitution art. 1, § 11 as unreasonable searches or seizures.
2. Whether Michigan’s constitutional history and precedent permit warrantless, suspicionless vehicle seizures for general criminal law enforcement.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that the sobriety checkpoint program violated Michigan Constitution art. 1, § 11.
- The court affirmed the judgment holding the program unconstitutional under state law, notwithstanding federal approval under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court concluded Michigan’s constitutional history provides no basis for allowing warrantless and suspicionless automobile seizures undertaken to enforce the criminal law.

## Legal Principles

- State constitutional search-and-seizure provisions may provide greater protection than the federal Fourth Amendment, and state courts may interpret them independently.
- Under Michigan Constitution art. 1, § 11, warrantless and suspicionless seizures of motorists conducted for criminal law enforcement purposes are not supported by Michigan constitutional history and are unreasonable.
- A program’s structured procedures and limited duration do not, by themselves, justify indiscriminate vehicle stops absent individualized suspicion when the program’s primary purpose is criminal enforcement.

## Conclusion

Michigan’s highest court prohibited sobriety checkpoints under art. 1, § 11, holding that Michigan’s search-and-seizure protections do not permit warrantless, suspicionless stops of drivers undertaken to enforce the criminal law, even though the same checkpoint model can satisfy federal Fourth Amendment standards.


Sitz v. Dep't of State Police, 506 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1993)