If you are out late on a weekend, you have probably seen, or even been through, a DWI checkpoint. While few people think much about them, their presence raises significant constitutional issues.
In former Soviet-bloc socialist and communist countries, for example, citizens are quite accustomed to being stopped and questioned by police, even while doing ordinary things. In the United States, however, this is quite unusual, mainly due to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court has set out specific guidelines for police to follow in conducting DWI checkpoints. In doing so, it rejected the basic idea that a checkpoint is acceptable because it will catch criminals. In Edmonds v. City of Indianapolis, the Court stated: "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime." 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000).
In North Carolina, the trial judge must make findings of fact with regard to the checkpoint. There are two separate sets of findings that must be made: (1) whether there was a proper "primary programmatic purpose" to the checkpoint, and (2) whether the checkpoint was reasonable. In State v. Rose, 170 N.C. App. 284 (2004) the trial court failed to make these findings, and the driver's DWI conviction was reversed on appeal.