Which case set forth four principal criteria for the validity of a DUI roadblock?

• A. Pennsylvania v Mimms
• B. Harris v United States
• C. Missouri v Seibert
• D. North Carolina v Butler

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that officer safety during a traffic stop justifies additional, reasonable steps by the officer. In this line of reasoning, the court held that when a stop is legally underway, an officer can require the driver to exit the vehicle to ensure safety. That brief intrusion is considered a permissible part of the stop, since the stop itself has already been deemed lawful and the action helps protect both the officer and the public without meaningfully infringing the motorist’s rights. This principle is often cited to justify safety measures at DUI checkpoints and similar stops, provided the overall stop remains reasonable and non-discriminatory. The other cases address different constitutional issues such as interrogations and waivers, not the specific rules governing the conduct of traffic stops or roadblocks, so they don’t govern this particular question.