The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 (Michigan v. Sitz) upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. The Court held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. 

In New Jersey, DWI/DUI roadblocks/checkpoints have also been upheld as constitutional under the NJ Constitution. The leading cases dealing with DWI/DUI roadblocks/sobriety checkpoints are:

State v. Mazurek, 567 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1989); State v. DeCamera, 568 A.2d 86 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1989); State v. Moskal, 586 A.2d 845 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1991); State v. Kirk, 493 A.2d 1271 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1985). State v. Barcia, 549 A.2d 491 (N.J. Super. L. 1988), held a checkpoint can violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution if it impedes interstate commerce. A DUI arrest may result from a vehicle inspection check under State v. Kadelak, 655 A.2d 461 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1995).

New Jersey DWI/DUI roadblocks/sobriety checkpoints must adhere to very strict notice and due process rules as set forth in the cases mentioned above. Mr. Gomez will review the police procedures in setting up the NJ DWI/DUI roadblock/sobriety checkpoint to be sure they followed the law. If there is any doubt as to whether police followed the proper procedure, Mr. Gomez will request the appropriate hearing for the judge to consider excluding any evidence gathered during the roadblock/sobriety checkpoint.