Court Opinion

ID: 9666786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:27:30.511395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.656132
License: Public Domain

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority’s use of the state constitution to find sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional.
I believe that if we were to apply the balancing test enunciated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979), and adopted in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, sobriety checkpoints would pass muster under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
No one can doubt the public concern over drunk drivers on our highways. The roadblock here was more effective in identifying alcohol impaired drivers than that found permissible in Sitz and the intrusion was slight. Here the average time a motorist was detained was under two minutes, hardly burdensome when balanced against safety on the highway.
The language of Minn. Const, art. 1, § 10 is identical to that of the Fourth Amendment. We have held that we may be required to interpret our own constitution more stringently than the federal constitution, “but we certainly do not do so lightly.” State v. Hamm, 423 N.W.2d 379, 382 (1988). In view of the overwhelming importance of public safety, I would not find the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint one of those areas that require the use of the state constitution.