A sobriety check point is where the police are stationed in order to stop every car and check every driver for sobriety. That does seem to violate the Fourth Amendment, as they could not do this when you are in your own home. It seems better to wait until an officer sees erratic behavior in driving to stop the driver.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights. The hidden agenda in Dui checkpoints are to sight people for minor infractions, not DUI arrests.I would rather have my tax money pay those 10 officers to go patrol the streets looking for drunk drivers. If each cop at a checkpoint was in a squad car patrolling actual lives would be saved.The amount of time they spend at the checkpoint checking id's and registrations to 200 cars and only catch one drunk driver, they could spend that time patrolling high traffic areas and catch probably 5x (minimum) the amount of drunk drivers and save actual lives. The statistics of catching drunk drivers at a checkpoint vs during patrol are insane. "The ABI cites California statistics in its press release, stating that in 2008, one million vehicles passed through checkpoints and only one third of 1% of drivers were arrested."
No, sobriety checkpoints don't violate the Fourth Amendment because the safety of the general populace in high drunk driving areas is of more importance than individual liberties. Except in the case of inalienable rights, one's rights end when they begin to impede on the rights of others, and drunk driving certainly fits that.