No, what they did was accurately grasp the definition of reasonable vs not. I don't see how you could ignore that, but I understand the need for the spin
Except the case wasn't about reasonable vs unreasonable.
The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that
such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued
the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn?t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States
