And DUI roadblocks would not stand a constitutional protection in this state. They reek of Eastern Bloc style tactics anyhow.  It will not be a far stretch to have roadblocks with government agents carrying submachine guns demanding papers for any reason they feel like.

.45/70 Government (The only Government I trust!)

 SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

This silly little section is what killed Seattle's DUI checkpoints.  

Now lets couple this protection with the Federal Constitution..

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again such silly words like "...probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation....describing the place to be searched...."  You really can't describe ALL cars along a given road.

I don't see how DUI checkpoints at all can survive the 4th at all. 

What other invasions into our private affairs do you wish the state to conduct.  If some jack booted thug knocks on your door at three in the AM to check for the presence of illegal drugs, do you invite him in or tell him to get the hell off your porch? 

.45/70 Government (The only Government I trust!)

 "The state's 1988 case stemmed from Seattle police roadblocks during the 1983-84 Christmas and New Year's holiday season. The Supreme Court found the program violated a state constitutional provision against illegal search and seizure.

But Justice James Dolliver, who participated in the majority decision, wrote in his concurring opinion that the program might be constitutional if it were authorized by statute.

Gregoire said her proposed bill fits Dolliver's criteria.

The state Attorney General's Office helped craft the proposed bill, Gregoire said. It will be introduced in the state House by Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor.

"If this does not make constitutional muster, then nothing will allow us to have this tool in our toolbox without changing our constitution," she said."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112930_checkpoints08m.html

Apparently lawmakers didn't think enough of the recent bill to get it out of committee....

This from State vs Ladson regarding pretextual traffic stops...  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=658013&invol=o01

"Article I, section 7, is explicitly broader than that of the Fourth                                                                                  
Amendment1 as it "'clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with                                                                          
no express limitations'" and places greater emphasis on privacy.  State v.                                                                            
Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 180, 867 P.2d 593 (1994) (quoting State v. Simpson,                                                                            
95 Wn.2d 170, 178, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980))"

I cannot find a copy of the Seattle case online however it is cited as

City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 755 P.2d 775 (Wa. 1988)

if you want to try and find it. 

.45/70 Government (The only Government I trust!)