2) So do drunk drivers that crash.
3) You're arguing against yourself. Yes, it's bad that bad guys get notified so they can avoid checkpoints.
4) Shouldn't law enforcement spend their time enforcing the law? It's well spent time IMO. As you say in (1), they also solve other more serious crimes (e.g. finding wanted criminals)
From a common-sense standpoint, I don't see how a DUI checkpoint isn't fundamentally similar to a traffic stop, regardless of the SCOTUS decision that permits them.
>Thank god one's civil liberties aren't dependent on whether or not you are convinced by them.
Apparently they are dependent on whether SCOTUS is convinced.
A DUI checkpoint is fundamentally different because police are unable to discriminate who they stop. They stop everyone who passes through the checkpoint.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't come with "unless it's super crime-y" exceptions.
https://www.westmifflinpolice.com/west-mifflin-dui-checkpoin...
86% of the citations they issued at that “DUI” checkpoint were not for DUIs.
The name is misleading. It’s not a DUI Checkpoint. It’s just a checkpoint. The definition of a police state.
It seems pretty obvious that inconveniencing 100 sober drivers for 5 minutes to prevent a drunk driving death would be worth it, even if 2 others get cited for unrelated offences. Simply citing unrelated citations doesn't really present a full picture.
2) They wreck traffic.
3) In nearly all cases they are easily routed around. Most (if not all) are advertised in a local media -- affording habitual day-drinkers the opportunity to avoid them easily. (this wrecks the REST of the traffic near the area, usually with panicked drunk drivers avoiding the stop)
4) They cost law enforcement time, for very little proven efficacy at anything more than accruing state revenue for expired tags and other small misdemeanors.