The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that the use of roadblocks by the State Police to catch drunken drivers is constitutional if Court-set guidelines were met.

At issue was the arrest of three motorists arrested at a 1983 roadblock in Sunderland, Mass. The justices rejected motions filed by the motorists' lawyers that the roadblock violated the drivers' constitutional protection against unfair search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The state's highest court in an earlier case had rejected evidence gathered by the Revere police at a roadblock and had offered guidelines under which a roadblock might be constitutional.

The court recommended guidelines for keeping roadblocks constitutional, including maintaining good lighting, making sure stops weren't for arbitrary reasons, and giving advance notice of the roadblock dates, though not of their locations.

"There is nothing...to indicate that the guidelines were not carefully followed in this case," Justice Joseph Nolan wrote in the majority decision.

In a dissent, Justice Neil L. Lynch said that the roadblock "resulted in an intrusion into the right of several hundred people to be free from arbitrary interference by law enforcement officials."

Harvard legal experts generally agreed with the court's decision.

"It is an extreme reading of the Fourth Amendment" to say that the Constitution protects drivers from being stopped under any circumstances, said Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Lawrence H. Tribe. The "notion of reasonableness" has to take account of the seriousness of drunken driving as a threat to highway safety, he said.

"I'm glad they're continuing to supervise roadblocks on a case by case basis," said Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz. "Roadblocks raise considerable conflict between the Fourth Amendment and the need for safe driving," he said. "But it is possible to strike a balance."