Under Supreme Court criteria, the reasonableness of a seizure depends on a favorable balance between the public's interest in the seizure and the individual's right against arbitrary police harassment. A reasonable seizure is also contingent upon the existence of legitimate means to implement the compelling State interest. Finally, the State must effect the compelling societal interest with minimal intrusion on the individual's constitutional rights by pursuing neutral, nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary guidelines. The public's concern for safe highways and the threat of drunk driving provide a sufficient compelling State interest that outweights the individual's right against the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint. Because the drunk driving roadblock is not as effective in detecting and apprehending drunk drivers as a routine roving patrol that stops drivers based on erratic driving behavior, the State must rely on the fact that the deterrent effect of the roadblock outweighs the seizure's intrusion. Accordingly, the police should notify the media of the intent to use the roadblock so as to enhance the checkpoint's deterrent effect, although the exact location of the checkpoint need not be disclosed. To ensure neutral and objective procedures, procedures should be designed by police administrators and sanctioned by a judicial warrant or be enacted by the legislature. 156 footnotes.