By Amy Vandervort-Clark, J.D. | Legally reviewed by Melissa Bender, Esq. | Last reviewed October 09, 2023
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
Driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving under the influence (DUI) are dangerous crimes. For years, states have grappled with how to reduce drugged and drunk drivers. In addition to strengthening DUI laws, many states use sobriety checkpoints. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that states that use DUI checkpoints have seen a significant drop in intoxication-related accidents and fatalities. Some data shows decreased DUIs and related incidents the week following a sobriety checkpoint.
A sobriety checkpoint, or DUI checkpoint, is a predetermined location where law enforcement officers set up a roadblock to screen drivers for signs of impairment. DUI checkpoints ensure that the public is safe from motorists driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI).
If the police officer suspects intoxicated driving, they conduct field sobriety tests and chemical tests. These include a Breathalyzer, breath test, urine, or blood tests. Chemical tests determine if your blood alcohol content (BAC) is over the legal limit or you are under the influence of other intoxicants. A positive chemical test is probable cause for a DUI arrest. You have the right to refuse these tests, but there are usually immediate consequences for not cooperating.
DUI checkpoints and roadblocks are different from saturation patrols. Saturation patrols are when police departments increase the number of police vehicles patrolling the streets. These often occur when more people might be drinking, like on holiday weekends.
Law enforcement agencies usually must give notice before employing sobriety checkpoints. You may choose to avoid that area or take extra precautions. If you decide to make a U-turn or otherwise evade the checkpoint, you risk catching police attention.
Sobriety checkpoints are controversial. Police officers must have a reasonable suspicion that a driver has broken traffic laws before making a traffic stop. A DUI checkpoint stop is different. Law enforcement agencies screen all or most vehicles passing through the checkpoint for intoxicated or drunk driving. They must use neutral methods to decide screening criteria, such as every fourth motor vehicle. They may not use profiling, such as by ethnicity, age, or make and model of the car.
Michigan established a pilot program for sobriety checkpoints in 1986 but faced a lawsuit. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court said that sobriety checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints were brief enough not to be overly intrusive. Also, states have a great interest in protecting their citizens from intoxicated drivers. The use of DUI checkpoints is a reasonable tool to use in reaching this goal.
Each state can determine the legality of checkpoints used to locate intoxicated motorists. Now, 12 states either prohibit DUI roadblocks or do not use them. The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia allow sobriety checkpoints.
Some states prohibit DUI checkpoints by state law. They may also interpret the U.S. Constitution through case law to block the use of checkpoints. Several do not allow them through their state constitutions. For instance, Texas prohibits checkpoints based on its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and constitutional rights. Interestingly, though a Michigan case prompted the Supreme Court's ruling that sobriety checkpoints are legal, Michigan ultimately decided its state constitution prohibits their use.
The frequency of these checkpoints can vary by the time of year. They are set up more often around specific events, like holidays or major sporting events. Typically, states allowing checkpoints require publication of the details of the DUI checkpoint beforehand.
The following chart details DUI checkpoint laws by state.
State |
Checkpoints? |
Legality |
Frequency |
Code Section/Case Law |
Alabama |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Throughout the year |
Case law: Smith v. State, 515 So. 2d 149, 150, 151 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) |
Alaska |
Not Used |
None |
N/A |
No statutory authority for use |
Arizona |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Can be at least once a month |
Case law: State v. Superior Court, 143 Ariz. 45, 691 P.2d 1073 (1984) |
Arkansas |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. Constitutions |
Can be weekly |
Case law: Brouhard v. Lee, 125 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 1997) |
California |
Yes |
By statute; state and U.S. Constitutions |
Over 2,500 annually |
Statute: CA Vehicle Code 2814.2; case law: Ingersoll v. Palmer, 743 P.2d 1299 (Cal. 1987) |
Colorado |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. Constitutions |
One to two times a month; see Colorado DUI Checkpoint Manual |
Case law: People v. Rister, 803 P.2d 483 (Col. 1990) |
Connecticut |
Yes |
Under state constitution |
N/A |
Case law: Connecticut v. Boisvert (40 Conn. App. 420 (1996); State v. Mikolinski, 775 A.2d 274 (Conn. 2001) |
Delaware |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Conducted monthly January to June; weekly July through December |
Case law: Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) |
District of Columbia |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
One to two times a month |
Case law: Galberth v. U.S., 590 A.2d 990 (D.C. App. 1991); U.S. v. McFayden, 865 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1989) |
Florida |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Multiple times per month |
Case law: State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (1986); Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1996) |
Georgia |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. Constitutions |
Weekly |
Case law: State v. Golden, 318 S.E.2d 693 (Ga. App. 1984); Evans v. State, 380 S.E.2d 332 (Ga. App. 1989); Seagraves v. State, 442 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. App. 1994); Hooten v. State, 442 S.E.2d 836 (Ga. App. 1994); Burns v. State, 454 S.E.2d 152 (Ga. App. 1995); Brent v. State, 510 S.E.2d 14 (Ga. 1998) |
Hawaii |
Yes |
By statute |
Weekly |
|
Idaho |
No |
N/A |
N/A |
Case law: State v. Henderson, 756 P.2d 1057 (Idaho 1988) |
Illinois |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Once or twice per month per county |
Case law: People v. Bartley, 486 N.E.2d 880 (Ill. 1985) |
Indiana |
Yes |
Under state constitution |
Only occasionally conducted |
Case law: Indiana v. Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 2002) |
Iowa |
No |
N/A |
N/A |
IA. Code Ann. §321K.1 does not allow sobriety checkpoints |
Kansas |
Yes |
Under state law and U.S. Constitution |
One to two a month |
Case law: State v. Deskins, 673 P. 2d 1174 (Kansas 1983) |
Kentucky |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Weekly |
Case law: Kinslow v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d. 677 (Ky. 1984); See also Commonwealth of Kentucky Traffic Safety Checkpoint Guide |
Louisiana |
Yes |
Under state constitution |
Varies; more often during holidays and events |
Case law: State v. Jackson, 764 So.2d 64 (La. 2000) |
Maine |
Yes |
Under U.S. constitution |
More frequent in the summer |
Case law: State v. Leighton, 551 A.2d 116 (Me. 1988); State v. McMahon, 557 A.2d 1324 (Me. 1989); State v. Babcock, 559 A.2d 337 (Me. 1989) |
Maryland |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Weekly |
Case law: Little v. State, 479 A.2d 903 (Md. 1984) |
Massachusetts |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Throughout the year |
Case law: Commonwealth v. Shields, 521 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1988); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 545 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) |
Michigan |
No |
Prohibited under the state constitution |
N/A |
Case law: Sitz v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 506 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1993) |
Minnesota |
No |
N/A |
N/A |
Ascher v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1994); Gray v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1994) |
Mississippi |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Weekly |
Case law: Miller v. State, 373 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 1979) |
Missouri |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Rarely; unfunded by the state |
Case law: State v. Welch, 755 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. App. 1988) |
Montana |
No, but alternate methods used |
By statute, safety check roadblocks are possible |
N/A |
Statute: Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-502 |
Nebraska |
Yes |
Under state law |
Multiple times per month |
Case law: State v. McCleery, 560 N.W.2d 789 (Neb. 1997) |
Nevada |
Yes |
By statute |
Multiple times per month |
Statute: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 484B.570 |
New Hampshire |
Yes, only with judicial approval |
By statute |
Weekly |
Statute: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 265:1-a |
New Jersey |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Several times a month |
Case law: State v. Mazurek, 567 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1989) |
New Mexico |
Yes |
Under state and federal constitutions |
Multiple times a month; more often during the summer and around events or holidays |
Case law: City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 735 P.2d 1161 (N.M. App. 1987); State v. Bates, 902 P.2d 1060 (N.M. App. 1995); State v. Madalena, 908 P.2d 756 (N.M. App. 1995) |
New York |
Yes |
Under U.S. Constitution |
Weekly; more frequent on weekends and holidays |
Case law: People v. Scott, 473 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 1984) |
North Carolina |
Yes |
By statute |
Weekly |
Statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.3A |
North Dakota |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
More often during holiday weekends or events |
Case law: City of Bismark v. Uhden, 513 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 1994). |
Ohio |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Throughout the year |
Case law: State v. Bauer, 651 N.E. 2d 46 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1994) |
Oklahoma |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
One to two times monthly |
Case law: Geopfert v. State Ex Re. DPS, 884 P.2d 1218 (Okla. App. 1994) |
Oregon |
No, illegal under state constitution |
N/A |
N/A |
Case law: State v. Boyanovsky, 743 P.2d 711 (Or. 1987) |
Pennsylvania |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Throughout the year; more often during holiday weekends or events |
Case law: Commonwealth v. Yastrop, 768 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2001) |
Rhode Island |
No, illegal under state constitution |
N/A |
N/A |
Case law: Primental v. Rhode Island, 561 A.2d 1348 (R.I. 1989) |
South Carolina |
Yes, with judicial approval |
U.S. Constitution; No state statute or case law |
N/A |
No state authority, but legal |
South Dakota |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Monthly |
Case law: State v. Claussen, 522 N.W.2d 196 (S.C. 1994) |
Tennessee |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Multiple times per month |
Case law: State v. Downey, 945 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1997) |
Texas |
No |
Illegal under Texas' interpretation of U.S. Constitution |
N/A |
Case law: State v. Holt, 887 S.W. 2d 16 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994) |
Utah |
Yes. with magistrate's approval |
By statute |
More often during the summer, over holidays |
Statute: Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-101 et seq |
Vermont |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Weekly |
Case law: State v. Martin, 496 A.2d 442 (Vt. 1985); State v. Record, 548 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1988) |
Virginia |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Occasionally |
Case law: Lowe v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 273 (Va. 1985) |
Washington |
No, illegal under state constitution |
N/A |
N/A |
Case law: City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 755 P.2d 775 (Wash. 1988) |
West Virginia |
Yes |
Under state and U.S. constitutions |
Multiple times per month |
Case law: Carte v. Cline, 460 S.E.2d 48 (W.Va. 1995) |
Wisconsin |
No, prohibited by state statute |
N/A |
N/A |
Statute: Wis. Stat. Ann. § 349.02(2)(a) |
Wyoming |
No |
N/A |
N/A |
Statute: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-17-101 et seq. |
A DUI conviction carries severe penalties. You can lose your driver's license, pay hefty fines, and serve jail time. If you are facing DUI charges due to a sobriety checkpoint, it's a good idea to talk to a local DUI attorney. Finding a qualified criminal defense lawyer can mean the difference between winning your case and serving a harsh DUI sentence.
Contact a qualified DUI attorney to make sure your rights are protected.
Get tailored advice and ask your legal questions. Many attorneys offer free consultations.