from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger---- [F]or purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 453-54, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth must present some evidence establishing that the method employed will be an effective tool for addressing the public concern involved. See Galberth v. United States, 590 A.2d 990, 999 (D.C.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Nieto v. State, 857 S.W.2d 149, 152-53
holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted holding that the challenged roadblock was unconstitutional in part because there was no empirical evidence that the roadblock technique itself effectively promoted the governments interest in deterring drug crimes holding that it was permissible for the jury to find that the defendants understood that the murder  was not an end in itself but rather was part of the  organizations larger drug distribution operation holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with