MADD Home Page

Sobriety Checkpoint

"More than two decades of research have demonstrated that sobriety checkpoints and other law enforcement efforts make a difference.  They are vitally effective techniques to get impaired drivers off of our roads.” -- Chief Joseph Carter, President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, November 2006

Sobriety checkpoints are used to detect impaired drivers.  Vehicles are stopped in a specific sequence (e.g., every other vehicle or every fourth vehicle).  This is designed not only to apprehend drunk drivers, but also to deter them from driving drunk.  Right now, only one arrest is made for every 88 episodes of driving over the illegal limit (Zador, 1997), so apprehension can not be the only goal.

These checkpoints have been shown several high quality studies and the Centers for Disease Control to reduce alcohol-related crashes and fatalities by 20 percent.  (CDC, 2001) This may create a minor inconvenience for drivers, but the Supreme Court ruled (in Michigan v. Sitz) that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional because this small inconvenience was overwhelmed by a compelling state interest in saving lives. Not only do they save lives, but they’ve been shown to be a cost-effective means of enforcement. (Mercer, et al, 1996; Miller et al, 1998; Stuster and Blowers, 1995)

Checkpoints are an integral and necessary part of anti-drunk driving enforcement and deserve our support.  Unfortunately, even though the US Supreme Court said sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are still ten states that do not allow them:  Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  If you are from one of these states, click here to email your state legislators and tell them you want them to authorize and conduct sobriety checkpoints in your state.

  • Castle SP, et al. “Early Evaluation of a Statewide Sobriety Checkpoint Program. 39th Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.” Chicago, IL; October 16–18, 1995: 65–78.
  • CDC Community Guide.  "Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints for Preventing Alcohol-Involved Crashes," 2001.  (Click here)
  • Elder, Randy, et al. "Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints for Reducing Alcohol-Involved Crashes." Traffic Injury Prevention (2002): 266-274. (not yet online)
  • Lacey, John, Ralph Jones, and RG Smith. “Evaluation of Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessee’s Statewide Sobriety Checkpoint Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999.
  • Lacey, John et al. “Enforcement and Public Information Strategies for DWI (driving-while-intoxicated) General Deterrence: ARREST DRUNK DRIVING—the Clearwater and Largo, Florida Experience.” Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 1986.
  • Levy, David, P Asch P, and D Shea. “An Assessment of County Programs to Reduce Driving While Intoxicated.” Health Education Research 5 (1990): 247–56.
  • Mercer GW. “The Relationships among Driving While Impaired Charges, Police Drinking-Driving Roadcheck Activity, Media Coverage and Alcohol-Related Casualty Traffic Accidents.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 17 (1985): 467–74.
  • Mercer, G.W., P.K. Cooper, L. A. Kristiansen. “A Cost/Benefit Analysis of a 5-Month Intensive Alcohol-Impaired Driving Road Check Campaign.” Proc. 40th Annual AAAM (1996): 283-292.
  • Miller, Ted, M.S. Galbraith and B.A. Lawrence. "Costs and Benefits of a Community Sobriety Checkpoint Program." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59 (1998): 462–468.  (not yet online) 
  • Shults, Ruth, et al.  "Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving."  American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(4S) (2001): 66-88. (Click here) 
  • Stuster, Jack and Paul Blowers. "Experimental Evaluation of Sobriety Checkpoint Programs." DOT HS 808 287.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, 1995. (not yet online)
  • Voas, Robert, HD Holder, and PJ Gruenewald. “The Effect of Drinking and Driving Interventions on Alcohol-Involved Traffic Crashes within a Comprehensive Community Trial.” Addiction 92 (1997): S221–S236.
  • Voas, Robert, E Rhodenzer, and Lynn. “Evaluation of Charlottesville Checkpoint Operation: Final Report, December 30, 1983 to December 31, 1984.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1985.
  • Wells JK, David Preusser, and Allan Williams. “Enforcing Alcohol-Impaired Driving and Seat Belt Use Laws, Binghamton, NY.” Journal of Safety Research 23 (1992): 63–71. 
  • Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore, "Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior," Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997. (not yet online)