et al. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

The Court, ruling on 14 June 1990, overturned the Michigan courts' decisions by a vote of 6-3. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist opined that such "seizures" were indeed reasonable, even though the one percent detention rate seemed minuscule. Rehnquist noted that the inconvenience presented to motorists was a slight one, and was superseded by the sobriety checkpoint's goal in deterring crime. Furthermore, in the end such statistics, Rehnquist and the other justices noted, were unable to support the argument--the one percent rate could only point up drunk driving arrests, not the number of drivers deterred from operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The High Court's decision was the first ever to support the actions of law-enforcement officials to detain individuals without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing. The three dissenting votes came from Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens. In his dissenting brief, Stevens called sobriety checkpoints "publicity stunts." Brennan and Marshall argued that such tactics, based on instilling elements of fear and surprise in citizens, were the cornerstones of authoritarian governments.