concurring.
The question presented in this case is whether the State’s initial seizure of appel-lee Juan Enrique Sanchez at a Department of Public Safety highway checkpoint was “reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the opinion of the plurality reaches the correct result but only after an incomplete and partially-incorrect analysis, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.
The Facts
The relevant facts are not in dispute. At approximately 8:45 a.m. on April 30, 1987, four Department of Public Safety (D.P.S.) troopers, acting on their own initiative, set up a temporary checkpoint on U.S. Highway 59 in Victoria County. The uniformed troopers briefly stopped all northbound traffic at the checkpoint for the purpose of inspecting each motorists’ driver’s license, proof of automobile liability insurance, vehicle registration, and external vehicle equipment. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. *1716687b, § 13 (driver’s license statute), and art. 6701h, § lB(a) (automobile liability insurance statute). The checkpoint’s location, on a straightaway portion of the divided highway, was selected by the troopers for its safety and convenience. In addition, to enhance safety and allay motorists’ concerns, the troopers placed traffic cones, orange flags, and signs on the highway instructing motorists that they were approaching an official checkpoint. The signs stated, “Driver’s License Check Ahead.”
At approximately 9:00 a.m., appellee stopped at the checkpoint in a two-door, 1977 Buick automobile. He was asked by one of the troopers to present his driver’s license and proof of insurance. He produced his driver’s license as requested but stated that he had no proof of insurance with him. At the same time, the trooper noticed that the passenger door window of appellee’s vehicle was broken out and that “most of the glass was on the inside,” indicating a possible break-in of the vehicle. The trooper also noticed that the front license plate of the vehicle was held in place by a wire, indicating that the plate possibly “did not belong on that vehicle.” Because appellee had no proof of insurance, and because of the trooper’s suspicions regarding appellee’s vehicle, the trooper instructed appellee to drive his vehicle onto the shoulder and then to step out. Appellee did so.
After a quick radio check of D.P.S. records revealed that the license plates on appellee’s vehicle actually belonged on a 1964 Ford automobile registered to one Ysabio Ramos of San Benito, the trooper asked appellee whether he would allow the trooper to inspect the vehicle’s trunk. Ap-pellee consented orally to the inspection and opened the trunk. Inside the trunk were three large bags, which emitted a “strong odor” of marihuana. The trooper then asked appellee to sign a consent form authorizing a search of the bags, and appel-lee did so. The trooper searched the bags, found approximately 85 pounds of marihuana, and arrested appellee.
On May 8, 1987, the grand jury of Victoria County indicted appellee for felony possession of marihuana. Appellee later filed a motion to suppress the marihuana on the ground that the D.P.S. checkpoint stop violated his rights to privacy and personal security under the Fourth Amendment. Appellee argued that the initial stop of his automobile was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the four D.P.S. troopers conducting the checkpoint acted without “formal, neutral guidelines” regarding the establishment and operation of checkpoints. Appellee also complained that the stop was unreasonable because the troopers acted without “superior officers’ knowledge, consent, or direction.” Significantly, appellee did not contend that the checkpoint stop was unreasonable for any other reason, e.g., because it was unduly lengthy or was conducted at a particularly inconvenient time or place or in an unsafe or frightening manner.
The State argued in response that the checkpoint stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because (1) such checkpoints are the only effective law enforcement tools for detecting violations of the driver’s license and automobile liability insurance statutes, and (2) the troopers’ discretion in selecting whom to stop was adequately limited in that they stopped all northbound traffic.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted appellee’s motion and ordered the marihuana suppressed. The State then appealed. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5). On appeal, a panel of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court and remanded the case for trial. State v. Sanchez, 800 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1990). The panel majority reasoned that “[t]he intrusion resulting from the brief stop [of appellee was] for constitutional purposes indistinguishable from the checkpoint stops upheld in [United States v.] Martinez-Fuerte [428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976)] and [Michigan Dept. of State Police v.] Sitz [496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990) ].” State v. Sanchez, 800 S.W.2d at 298. A dissenting justice concluded, how*172ever, that under the Fourth Amendment, “officers acting without supervisory approval or control may [not] create a roadblock stopping all traffic to inspect driver’s licenses, insurance, vehicle registration, and equipment.” State v. Sanchez, 800 S.W.2d at 299 (Dorsey, J., dissenting). We granted appellee’s petition for discretionary review because the justices of the court of appeals disagreed on a material question of law. See Tex.R.App.P. 200(c)(5).
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691-92, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fourth Amendment is implicated in this case because whenever a government official directs a vehicle to stop, however briefly, he has thereby “seized” the occupant, for the stop inevitably restrains that person’s freedom of movement. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. at 2485.
The Fourth Amendment imposes a standard of “reasonableness” upon the exercise of governmental search-and-seizure powers in order to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference with the privacy and personal security of individuals. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 554, 96 S.Ct. at 3081. The Fourth Amendment thus strikes a fair balance between society’s need for public safety and order on the one hand and the individual’s need for privacy and security on the other.
The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not susceptible to precise definition or mechanical application, however. Rather, in evaluating the reasonableness of a particular seizure, a court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the seizure and the nature of the seizure itself, and then must sensitively balance the governmental need for the seizure against the intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests it entails. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3308, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Furthermore,
[a] central concern in balancing these competing considerations [must be] to assure that an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field. To this end, the Fourth Amendment requires that a seizure must be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society’s legitimate interests require the seizure of the particular individual, or that the seizure must be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
The United States Supreme Court has never directly addressed the Fourth Amendment reasonableness of systematic, suspicionless stops at regulatory inspection checkpoints like the one at issue here, although the Court has strongly suggested, albeit in dicta, that such stops are generally permissible. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (“Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible [way to inspect driver’s licenses and automobile registrations].”). The Supreme Court has addressed, and upheld as reasonable, suspicionless stops at certain border and sobriety checkpoints. See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116. And the Court has disapproved, as unreasonable, a system of suspi-cionless, random stops made by Delaware police in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660. With this background in mind, I turn now to a balancing of the competing interests at stake here.
*173The Governmental Need
It is abundantly clear that the state has “a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation,” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 658, 99 S.Ct. at 1398, and hence that licensing, registration, liability insurance, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed. It is equally clear that this strong state interest — at least with respect to statutory licensing and insurance requirements — cannot be adequately dealt with by more traditional law enforcement techniques involving case-by-case determinations of what persons are to be interfered with. In other words, it would be impractical to require law enforcement personnel to have a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in this context. Compare United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 557-562, 96 S.Ct. at 3082-85. This is so because, as common sense dictates, there is never an observable indication, from a moving vehicle, of a licensing or insurance statute violation. See Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228, 237 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) (plurality opinion).
It is also plain that highway checkpoints are reasonably effective in advancing the state interest in question. First, as noted previously, there is no practical alternative technique for detecting licensing and liability insurance violations. Second, highway checkpoints, if used with sufficient frequency, can act as substantial deterrents to licensing and liability insurance violations. Third, although the likely “success” in the sense of stop/apprehension percentages may be small, a checkpoint, wherever located,1 will certainly reveal whatever percentage of the driving population that is in fact violating the licensing and liability insurance statutes. Finally, checkpoints are “more efficient [than the random stops condemned in Delaware v. Prouse ] in the sense of bringing about a higher number of stops and thus discovery of a higher number of violations.” 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.8(d), fn. 100.1 (2d ed. 1987 & Supp.1993).
A plurality of this Court holds the checkpoint stop of appellee unreasonable in part because there is an “absence of testimony or empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the roadblock.” Op. at 170. I believe this one part of the plurality opinion is without solid foundation. Neither Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, Delaware v. Prouse, nor United States v. Martinez-Fuerte can reasonably be read to absolutely require the government to produce statistical evidence of effectiveness with respect to any particular law enforcement technique. What is necessary, under the Fourth Amendment, is for the courts to be satisfied that the technique in question is reasonably effective in advancing the governmental interest in question. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. at 2487; Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 659, 99 S.Ct. at 1399; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 554, 96 S.Ct. at 3081. The point here is simply that, as a threshold matter, a seizure may not be deemed “reasonable” if it is accomplished by way of a patently ineffective — and thus fundamentally unreasonable — law enforcement technique. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 659, 99 S.Ct. at 1399. And, as I have already demonstrated, there can be no serious dispute that highway checkpoints are reasonably effective in advancing the governmental interest in question.
*174The Intrusion on Fourth Amendment Interests
The physical intrusion of the initial checkpoint stop on appellee’s privacy and security was quite limited. The duration of the initial stop itself and the intensity of the investigation surrounding it were both minimal; no search was involved (initially), appellee was asked only a couple of simple questions, and he was not even required to leave his vehicle (initially).
The psychological intrusion of the initial stop was also quite limited. The checkpoint was conducted in such a manner that appellee could see that he was not being singled out for discriminatory treatment and that all vehicles were being detained routinely; he could see visible signs of the officers’ authority, thus assuring him that the stop was apparently lawful and believed to serve the public interest; and he was not likely to be frightened or particularly annoyed by the intrusion.
In addition to the physical and psychological intrusions, however, we must consider the extent to which appellee’s expectation of privacy and security was “subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. at 51, 99 S.Ct. at 2640. Here, the D.P.S. officers set up the checkpoint on their own initiative, without supervisory approval, and they did so without any written, departmental guidelines regarding the operation of the checkpoint. Obviously, such a situation presents a serious risk of abuse of discretion and, therefore, intrudes greatly on appellee’s Fourth Amendment interest in being free of arbitrary and oppressive searches and seizures. Compare Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. at 52, 99 S.Ct. at 2641; Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 661, 99 S.Ct. at 1400. As one prominent commentator has observed,
Quite clearly, the question of where and when [and how] a ... roadblock is to be conducted should not be left to officers in the field. Rather, what is needed is that these roadblocks be established by a plan formulated or approved by executive-level officers of the law-enforcement agencies involved which contains standards with regard to time, place and other matters. This is because in the absence of record evidence that the decision to establish the roadblock was made by anyone other than the officers in the field, the roadblock in question has certain characteristics of a roving patrol, namely, an appreciable risk of an arbitrary basis for the site or time decision.
4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.-8(d), at 76 (2d ed. 1987 & Supp.1993) (footnotes and some punctuation omitted; emphasis added). Accord Com. v. Amaral, 398 Mass. 98, 495 N.E.2d 276 (Mass.1986); State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup, 233 Neb. 670, 447 N.W.2d 243 (Neb.1989); Webb v. State, 739 S.W.2d 802, 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (2-judge plurality); Simmons v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 200, 380 S.E.2d 656 (Va.1989).2
*175Police procedures are less threatening to Fourth Amendment interests when the discretionary authority of the officer in the field — and thus the primary risk of arbitrary action — is kept at an absolute minimum. If the discretion of the officer in the field is not kept at a minimum, then abuse of that discretion will inevitably occur, and the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures will be undermined.
In sum, the weight bearing on the first scale (the measure of the governmental need for highway checkpoints to inspect driver’s licenses and insurance), although substantial, is counterbalanced in this case by the heavy weight bearing on the second scale (the measure of this particular checkpoint stop’s intrusion on appellee’s Fourth Amendment interest in privacy and security). Thus, I would hold the checkpoint stop here invalid under the Fourth Amendment, but I would further hold that had the checkpoint been conducted with executive-level approval and according to written, departmental guidelines, the delicate balance of competing interests would certainly have led to a different result.
With these comments, I join the judgment of the Court.
MEYERS, J., joins.. It is important to recognize, as Professor La-Fave has, that
in [Delaware v.] Prouse the [Supreme] Court indicated a checkpoint to check for drivers' licenses would be constitutional, though the success rate would not be higher [than it would be in a system of random stops]. While a DWI checkpoint might possibly be located on a street where accident statistics or the proximity of taverns suggests intoxicated drivers are most likely to be present, it seems unlikely that it is possible to position a license checkpoint in a location which is especially likely to be productive, and thus the success of the roadblock measured by the ratio of discovered violations to stops would not be greater than that from random stoppings.... 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.8, fn. 100.1 (2d ed. 1987 & Supp.1993) (parentheses omitted).
. There is plainly no requirement under the Fourth Amendment for any kind of legislatively-authorized, statewide administrative scheme governing the use of highway checkpoints. Neither logic nor Supreme Court case law requires such a scheme. See State v. Holt, 852 S.W.2d 47 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. pending) ("The Fourth Amendment’s concern is preventing arbitrary seizures, not requiring statewide plans.”). In applying the Fourth Amendment, it is not for the courts to decide which branch of government — executive or legislative — must authorize or draft guidelines for the operation of highway checkpoints. Nor is it our concern whether the guidelines are statewide or merely local. What is generally required under the Fourth Amendment is that the discretion of the officer in the field be kept at a minimum.
Although the Supreme Court, in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481, stated that "politically accountable officials” rather than the courts should decide "which among reasonable law enforcement techniques should be employed,” that language cannot reasonably be construed to mean that checkpoints are lawful only when set up according to legislatively-authorized, statewide administrative schemes. Other than the concurrence in State v. Wagner, 810 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), which was, of course, dicta, and the lower court opinions that have construed it, see State v. Wagner, 821 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd); King v. State, 816 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd), we have found no authority anywhere suggesting that Sitz holds that the Fourth Amendment requires such schemes in order for checkpoint stops to be reasonable. Indeed, a careful reading of the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Sitz reveals that the checkpoint plan under review *175there was implemented at the direction of the Michigan Governor, not the Michigan Legislature. Sitz v. Dept. of State Police, 170 Mich.App. 433, 429 N.W.2d 180, 181 (Mich.App.1988).