# Commonwealth v. Yastrop

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 26, 2001 · 564 Pa. 338

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703726

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. David Ronald YASTROP, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 26, 2001
- **Citations:** 564 Pa. 338; 768 A.2d 318; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 620
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Gappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703726

## Opinion text

SAYLOR, Justice, concurring.
I agree with the dissent that the enhanced privacy interests under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are implicated by the law enforcement practice of conducting systematic stops of members of the traveling public to enforce the prohibition against driving while intoxicated. Nevertheless, I join the majority’s disposition, as I do not view the present case as an appropriate vehicle in which to consider overturning the precedential rulings of Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277 , 535 A.2d 1035 (1987), and Commonwealth v. Blouse, 531 Pa. 167 , 611 A.2d 1177 (1992).
In assessing the reasonableness of DUI roadblocks, I follow the majority’s approach of employing the balancing test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 , 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2484 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990), and previously applied by this Court in Blouse, 531 Pa. at 169-70 , 611 A.2d at 1178 . That test requires “balancing of the state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual’s privacy caused by the checkpoints.” Sitz, *352 496 U.S. at 448-49 , 110 S.Ct. at 2484 . Because both the state’s interest in curbing drunken driving and the protection of individual privacy interests are compelling policy considerations which are in competition in this setting, 1 the third salient factor, the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, assumes a heightened degree of importance. In the present case, however, Appellant failed to present any significant empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness inquiry; rather, the only record evidence bearing upon this question was anecdotal, namely, the experience resulting from the single roadblock at which Appellant was stopped. Compare State v. Church, 538 So.2d 993 , 997 n. 16 (La.1989) (citing statistical evidence that included roadblocks conducted from December of 1986 to August of 1987 in concluding that the intrusion was of marginal effectiveness). On this record, therefore, I would merely affirm the order of the Superior Court based upon current precedent, while reserving decision upon its wisdom for a case in which the record is properly and fully developed.
Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring opinion.
. By contrast, under the Fourth Amendment, the intrusion of the roadblock upon individual privacy has been characterized as "slight.” See Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451 , 110 S.Ct. at 2486 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703726. Public record. Not legal advice.