Recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have used a balancing test to determine the reasonableness of a search or seizure and suggest several points in relation to DUI roadblocks. For roadblocks, reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest in highway safety and the individual's right to personal security and privacy. Supreme Court decisions in several cases have suggested that DUI roadblocks would not be considered reasonable because they surprise approaching motorists, they are not operated for administrative purposes, and they give the police substantial discretion. They also represent wholesale intrusions that are not sufficiently justified by the public's legitimate interest in highway safety. In addition, available data indicate that they are ineffective at revealing persons who are driving under the influence. Moreover, they do not involve factors that would justify making an exception to the requirement of specific information to justify police intrusions into privacy. Nevertheless, confusion exists on the issue of DUI roadblocks. This confusion has resulted from the undue emphasis that some courts have placed on part of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Delaware v. Prouse. Courts should be more cautious in using the Prouse decision. The availability of less intrusive approaches, such as roadblocks solely to check drivers' licenses and vehicle registrations, should be recognized. 158 case notes.