Happy New Year. Individuals with impaired judgment will no doubt be driving this weekend and law enforcement will be working overtime engaged in aggressive DWI Patrols. There will also be DUI roadblocks in certain areas of Pennsylvania. To many of us, the thought of being randomly stopped and questioned by the police, whether at a DUI roadblock or otherwise while engaged in our daily activities, is the most odious form of government invasion of our "Privacy."

Article 1 section 8 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution establishes a citizen's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This commonly understood substantive right is known as our Right to Privacy. Our Right to Privacy extends to our vehicles, for sure, but Pennsylvania Courts have consistently held that our privacy interest while driving is "diminished," that being something less than the expectation of Privacy we would expect while in our home or office. How does the citizen reconcile a diminished Privacy interest while driving with her fundamental understanding of freedom?

Let's examine our easily understood right to free speech. You will note that free speech has its limitations. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and expect that speech to be protected. The rationale is that the government at times has a compelling reason to limit those rights guaranteed by the state or federal constitution. We cannot allow citizens to create chaos and endanger to others by yelling "fire" under the circumstances above referenced.

Turning to ROADBLOCKS or CHECKPOINTS, the courts have held that the state has a compelling interest in detecting and removing intoxicated drivers because they may cause death, serious bodily injury, and property damage. The court explained in Commonwealth v. Tarbert:

The mass carnage that results from unsafe vehicles occupying the road outweighs the privacy interest of the individual...the state has a vital interest in maintaining highway safety by ensuring that only qualified drivers are permitted to operate their vehicles and that unsafe drivers are kept off the road.

Systematic, nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary roadblocks for the purpose of detecting drunk drivers are constitutional if established and conducted in substantial compliance set forth below:

1. The roadblock must be ascertainable from a reasonable distance;

2. Warning to the Public through publishing and other means of dissemination that a roadblock will occur at a specific time and place;

3. The existence of the roadblock and the time it is established must be on a rout which, based on local experience, is likely to be travelled by intoxicated drivers; and

4. The disruption to traffic flow cannot be such that driver safety is compromised.

If you approach a roadblock it is acceptable to adjust your route to avoid it. Do not commitment a motor vehicle violation, however, when changing your route because the police are looking for those vehicles seeking to avoid roadblocks and have been known to initiate traffic stops for the evasive maneuver alone.