The U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz in 1989 revolved around the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints, which were being challenged as a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The plaintiff, Rick Sitz, argued that these random stops infringed upon his constitutional rights. However, the court ruled in favor of the Michigan Department of State Police by a 6-3 vote stating that such checkpoints did not violate citizens' rights under the Fourth Amendment because they served a significant public interest - reducing drunk driving incidents and related accidents - and were minimally invasive to motorists’ privacy.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, argued that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that these stops were not justified by a pressing societal concern nor did they meet an objective standard of reasonableness. The majority's reliance on balancing tests was criticized as it allowed them to justify any intrusion if its potential benefits outweighed its invasion of privacy. Furthermore, they pointed out that there was no empirical evidence proving the effectiveness of such checkpoints in reducing drunk driving incidents or accidents caused by drunk drivers; thus questioning their necessity and efficacy as a law enforcement tool.