I recently blogged on one Washington legislator's attempt to re-address DUI Checkpoints in Washington State. The Supreme Court of Washington had already addressed this proposition in State v. Messiani, wherein the court held such DUI Checkpoints were too invasive given our extensive securities and right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment and Washington State Constitution's Article I Section 7 (where there is more privacy afforded individuals in Washington).
I always find it interesting that other state allow such checkpoints when all they do is give reason to cops to unlawfully search you and your vehicle, whether you have been drinking or not. Take for example what happened to a West Virginia resident. He was stopped with his wife at a "DUI Checkpoint" and asked to exit the vehicle. The officer never even asked him if he had been drinking, according to the lawsuit filed by the gentlemen. He alleges the officer searched him for weapons after he informed the officer he was legally carrying a firearm, permit and all. He says the officer groped his personal region (aka testicles) after the gun had been retrieved. Now, why if this man had not been asked if he had been drinking was he subject to exiting his vehicle and a search? There is no reason other than intrusive governmental authority. See the details here: Lawsuit claims man groped at DUI checkpoint.
You can also search the vast videos on youtube of persons legally exercising their rights at these DUI checkpoints only to face governmental abuse. In a word DUI checkpoints are a "bad" idea! Yes, you may find a drunk or two, but you will far exceed the benefits of these checkpoints by offending and invading the privacy of countless citizens who have done nothing wrong.