ABSTRACT
Ordinarily a person or property may be seized only upon evidence providing probable cause to do so under a criminal statute or other law that the officer purports to enforce. Concentrating its attention on the issue of federal more than that of Oregon law, the majority opinion seeks support for its result in selected quotations from United States Supreme Court opinions in rather different cases. The Supreme Court's acceptance or rejection of relaxed standards for unconsented entries, stops, or inspections in true administrative programs has emphasized a particular concern and its corresponding safeguards. The distinction between preventive or corrective administration and criminal investigation thus is the first step in the analysis, before a question of characterizing the "checkpoint" arises. In sum, the majority is misled by its preoccupation with the stationary or mobile character of the police officer's checkpoint into disregarding the context in which the Supreme Court has made that a relevant question.
