checkpoints] program in the interior is necessary because the flow of illegal aliens cannot be controlled effectively at the border,” and holding that, although checkpoint stops are seizures, as contemplated under the Fourth Amendment, because they involve only a brief detention, during which a question or two must be answered and documents produced, and neither ihe vehicle nor its occupants is searched, and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited to what can be seen without a search, the stops could be made in the absence of reasonable suspicion). Similarly, stops at sobriety checkpoints have been upheld in the absence of particularized and focused suspicion. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 451, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2485-86, 110 L.Ed.2d 412, 420-21 (1990) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422
holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test holding that the seizure of motorists who were stopped at a sobriety checkpoint at which all vehicles were stopped was reasonable without individualized suspicion in light of the magnitude of the drunkdriving problem and the determination of law enforcement officials that such checkpoints were necessary to apprehend such individuals before tragedy strikes holding that sobriety checkpoints at which approximately 15 percent of the drivers passing through the checkpoint were arrested were sufficiently productive holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that the defendants were not denied their right to be present during the peremptory strike phase of jury selection where they were present during voir dire had a chance to confer with counsel before the jury was impaneled and were present in the courtroom when the peremptory strikes were given actual effect by the clerks reading off the list