TN Highway Patrol to conduct 'no refusal' enforcement Labor Day weekend

[FrodosPet]

34. If they are getting warrants, like the story said

Then there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, drivers continue to challenge the legality of DUI checkpoints, asking one very persistent question: are DUI checkpoints unconstitutional?

Prior to the 1990 ruling, several Michigan drivers filed suit against the state after being arrested in a DUI roadblock. The drivers argued that, because they were stopped without reason, their arrests clearly violated the Fourth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. After reviewing the case, the Michigan State Supreme Court agreed with the drivers and ruled in their favor—but that changed once the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

~ snip ~

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

~ snip ~