The ACLU is similarly up in arms over DD checks: > The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice

The ACLU is similarly up in arms over DD checks: > The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment's privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant. > We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-supreme-court-finds-drunk-driving-laws-can-be-strictly-enforced https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-suprem... From 1984: > [...] the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop a new sobriety-checkpoint program in California. The ACLU says the program is a "substantial invasion of . . . fundamental constitutional rights." > In its California brief, pending at the state Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the ACLU argues that if sobriety checkpoints are upheld "it will not be long before the police establish roadblocks and checkpoints for investigations of other sorts of serious crimes." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/aclu-sues-on-use-of-roadblocks/48753b6c-0852-4b63-85ef-db0d38d37135/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/a...