Opinion ID: 2041031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Degree to which Seizure Advances Interest

Text: A seizure is not reasonable unless it is well calculated to effectuate its purpose. Moreover, to justify a seizure on less than articulable suspicion or probable cause, the government must demonstrate that the method chosen is necessary and effective, and more effective than alternative mechanisms. In Martinez-Fuerte, substantial evidence demonstrated the checkpoint's effectiveness in detecting illegal aliens. The requirement of reasonable suspicion was impractical because the heavy flow of traffic (1,176 cars per hour) precluded the ... particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. 428 U.S. at 557, 96 S.Ct. at 3083. The record substantiated the effectiveness of the checkpoint and it appeared that the law enforcement need in question could be met without reliance on routine checkpoint stops. 428 U.S. at 556-557 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. at 3082 n. 12. The necessity for even a minimal degree of interference had not been demonstrated in Prouse and Brown. In Prouse, the Court recognized that keeping dangerous automobiles and drunk drivers off the highway was a legitimate public interest, but concluded that roving patrols were not a sufficiently productive mechanism because of their incremental contribution to highway safety. The low productivity of the roving patrol stop was similarly cited in Brown, 443 U.S. at 52, 99 S.Ct. at 2641. Finally, I think the Court has made it clear that when a given crime is one which can be frequently detected through observation (like driving offenses), it is unlikely that stops on less than reasonable suspicion are constitutional. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 882, 883 n. 8, 95 S.Ct. at 2581 n. 8; Prouse, 440 U.S. at 659, 99 S.Ct. at 1399.