The fourth amendment requires that seizure of motorists at DWI roadblocks be reasonable. Essentially, the test of reasonableness consists of balancing the legitimate State interest in highway safety against the individual's interest in privacy and freedom of movement. This test, however, is not easy to apply to warrantless searches. The design and implementation of DWI roadblock procedures must be tailored to address three key factors in the administrative balancing test: (l) document the DWI problem in the local community to demonstrate the gravity of the public interest at stake, (2) monitor the roadblock operation carefully to ensure that it is meeting the goals of deterrence and detection, and (3) minimize the severity of interference with individual privacy as much as is reasonably practical. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has not considered the constitutionality of DWI roadblocks, State court decisions are critical. They make clear that DWI roadblock programs need not be permanent, nor require the detention of every vehicle, nor be disguised as routine license checks. The Arizona Supreme Court in State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State and the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan held DWI roadblocks to be unconstitutional. However, a New Jersey court in 1980 upheld the warrantless operation of a local police DWI roadblock as did the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Deskins in 1983. The Deskins decision was the first to specify the considerations in its analysis, providing an 11-step test which police departments can use to design a DWI roadblock program. As an alternative, the Massachusetts and Kansas Supreme Courts suggested that the State legislature consider a law or regulation approving the DWI roadblock as an investigative technique. The article includes 44 footnotes.