Sobriety Checkpoints Are Not Allowed in Michigan

Sobriety checkpoints, where police stop every passing car to look for impaired drivers, may not be used in Michigan. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1990 that such checkpoints are allowed under the Fourth Amendment, but the Michigan Supreme Court held in 1993 that they violate article 1, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution, which gives greater protection against warrantless seizures.^[2] The result is that Michigan police investigate impaired driving through individual traffic stops, each of which must be justified on its own.^[3]

Two cases with the same name

Both landmark checkpoint decisions are called Sitz, and both began with a Michigan program.

Case	Court and year	Question	Holding
Michigan Dep't of State Police v Sitz, 496 US 444	U.S. Supreme Court, 1990	Does a highway sobriety checkpoint program violate the Fourth Amendment?	No: the program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.[1]
Sitz v Dep't of State Police, 443 Mich 744	Michigan Supreme Court, 1993	Do sobriety checkpoints violate the Michigan Constitution?	Yes: they violate Const 1963, art 1, § 11.[2]

What the Michigan program looked like

The checkpoints at issue were Michigan's own. The Michigan State Police set up a sobriety checkpoint pilot program in early 1986.^[1] Under its guidelines, checkpoints would be placed at selected sites on state roads, every vehicle would be stopped, and each driver would be briefly examined for signs of intoxication. A driver who showed signs would be directed out of traffic for a license and registration check and, if warranted, further sobriety tests.^[1]

Only one checkpoint was run under the program, in Saginaw County. It lasted 75 minutes; 126 vehicles passed through with an average delay of about 25 seconds; two drivers were held for field sobriety testing and one was arrested, and a driver who drove through without stopping was pulled over and arrested.^[1]

The 1990 federal decision

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the State Police's highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.^[1] The Michigan Judicial Institute summarizes the decision as allowing roadblocks that enforce vehicle regulations, including checkpoints to check licenses and registrations, make safety inspections, check sobriety, or inspect cargo trucks.^[5]

The 1993 Michigan decision

The Michigan Supreme Court then decided the question under the state constitution. It held that the Michigan Constitution provides greater protection against warrantless seizures than the federal constitution, and that the use of sobriety checkpoints violates Const 1963, art 1, § 11.^[2] Article 1, section 11, as amended in 2020, says that "the person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."^[6]

Some websites still say Michigan police can set up DUI checkpoints. That describes federal law, not Michigan law: under the 1993 decision, sobriety checkpoints may not be used here.^[2]

What the ban does not mean

The checkpoint ban is narrow. It does not stop police from looking for impaired drivers in other lawful ways:

• Ordinary stops still happen. An officer may stop a vehicle if the officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion of a violation of law.^[3] A stop supported by a real violation is valid even if the officer suspected drinking.^[7]
• Increased patrols are allowed. Michigan's "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" campaigns, such as the one from August 14 to September 7, 2026, bring increased enforcement and a statewide paid media campaign.^[4] The winter 2025–26 campaign ran from December 12, 2025, through January 1, 2026.^[8] Increased enforcement does not change the rule that each stop needs reasonable suspicion of a violation.^[3]
• Tips still count. A reliable report of dangerous driving can generally justify stopping that vehicle on suspicion of drunk driving.^[9]
• Arrests still require probable cause. The checkpoint question concerns only the initial seizure; an arrest needs probable cause.^[10]

The 1993 decision addressed sobriety checkpoints. This guide did not verify how Michigan courts treat other kinds of checkpoints, so no rule about them is stated here.

How individual stops are judged instead

Because Michigan does not allow checkpoints, each OWI investigation starts with a stop that has to be justified on its own facts. Several rules then apply to that stop:

• A strong odor of intoxicants on a driver's breath can, standing alone, give an officer reasonable suspicion of drunk driving, though it does not by itself show the alcohol level is over the limit.^[11]
• Police may not extend the stop beyond the time needed for its purpose unless new reasonable suspicion develops.^[12]
• An officer's misreading of a clear statute is not a reasonable mistake of law that can justify a stop (People v Lucynski).^[13]
• Pulling in behind a parked car so as to block or partly block it, with spotlights and officers approaching from both sides, can itself be a seizure (People v Duff).^[14]

Why it matters in a case

If a driver were stopped at a suspicionless roadblock aimed at drunk driving, the stop would be a seizure without the justification Michigan law requires.^[15][2] The usual way to raise a problem with a stop is a motion to suppress; in an unlawful-seizure case decided in 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to the evidence.^[16] Whether a particular stop was lawful depends on its facts, explained further in when police may stop a car and what happens at an OWI traffic stop.

For families of crash victims

The checkpoint ban is about how a driver may be stopped, not about how impaired driving is punished once it is proved. Michigan recorded 264 deaths in alcohol-involved crashes in 2025, a figure explained, with its definitions, in Michigan drunk-driving statistics.^[17] A list of other common misunderstandings is in myths about Michigan OWI law.