In the case of Illinois v. Robert S. Lidster, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that police checkpoints set up to gather information from motorists about a hit-and-run accident were not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The decision was based on balancing public concern with individual rights to privacy and freedom from police interference. In this particular instance, Robert Lidster was arrested for drunk driving at one such checkpoint in Lombard, Illinois after he nearly hit an officer with his car while approaching it slowly. He challenged his arrest arguing that evidence obtained during these stops should be suppressed as they violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure since there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause before stopping him.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Lidster, Justice David Souter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a police checkpoint aimed at gathering information about a hit-and-run incident was inconsistent with previous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that such checkpoints are not narrowly tailored enough to justify their intrusion on individual privacy rights and could potentially lead to widespread abuse by law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling might be interpreted in future cases involving similar circumstances, as it seemingly grants broad authority for police officers to stop individuals without any specific suspicion of wrongdoing. In his view, this undermines fundamental constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.