In my view, freedom to leave the line means freedom to leave the line without being stopped. Thus, a reasonable factfinder could find that the motorists were seized not only at the roadblock, but also while waiting in line, significantly increasing the intrusiveness of the seizures. I believe the panel further minimizes the intrusiveness of the roadblocks by limiting its intrusiveness analysis to the stop's duration. The panel's analysis, however, does not consider the fear and surprise that such a sight would engender in a law- abiding motorist. As the Supreme Court has observed, Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one's home, workplace, and leisure activities.
Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets.
Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. In my view, this opinion comes perilously close to permitting unfettered government intrusion on the privacy interests of all motorists. For this reason and those discussed above, I would grant rehearing en banc.