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.
Constitutional Nuance
Note: Some states block checkpoints via state law or their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Texas and Michigan are strong examples—Texas rejects them based on federal interpretation, while Michigan bans them despite prompting the Supreme Court ruling that legalized them
“While some states block DUI checkpoints through their own constitutions or interpretations of federal law, for many communities, legality feels less like protection and more like a pre-paid card—pre-loaded with suspicion, surveillance, and charges.”
Systemic Insight: When Legality Isn’t Protection
For many Black and Brown communities, the legality of DUI checkpoints feels less like a public safety measure and more like a pre-paid card—pre-loaded with suspicion, surveillance, and charges. It’s not just about where the checkpoints are placed (often in urban, over-policed neighborhoods), but about who’s expected to fail them. Even when states claim constitutional protections, those protections don’t always reach the people most vulnerable to discretionary enforcement.
The law may be written in ink, but it’s enforced in bias.
The law may be written in ink, but it’s enforced in bias.
