I knew I could give this thread a big boost in it's post count. Where to start?
Hohbomb-you're not stopping the crime before it occurs. The driver is already DUI. You're stopping them before they hurt someone. Your analogy is ridiculous, but I didnt expect much more.
Fuzzy Grub-Even thinking about responding to this intelligently without calling you an idiot is impossible. I think I'll pass.
Aunty-You're right. I have no idea what the 4th Amendment means. I should have learned it yesterday. Me, the lawmakers of 40 other states and the United States Supreme Court including Chief Justice Rehnquist who said that DUI checkpoints are "necessary to reduce drunk driving." None of us have any clue about the constitution.
Stlhead- If you think people become cops for "more power," I don't think there's anything I could say to change your mind. Don't worry though. You will still be able to call 911 when you need help and one of the power hungry, jack booted thugs will immediately respond to help you. The reason this has the support of Law Enforcement is because it takes drunk drivers off the streets. Not for "more power." If you have never seen someone killed by a drunk driver and then had to notify their family, you proably aren't going to get it.
Irie- Here's a list of states you can consider if this passes. Alaksa, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Texas is nice. You can learn to fish for speckled trout and redfish. These are the states that currently prohibite checkpoints. You might not want to unpack though, because other states are looking at this issue again too.