Combatants on both sides are passionate about their arguments, some of which are summarized below. Use the Talkback feature to let us know what you think.

WISCONSIN NEEDS SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE ...

• A total of 38 other states think that they are effective tools in combating drunk driving.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that sobriety checkpoints are legal. The Court ruled that government interest in preventing drunken driving outweighs the brief intrusion on individuals who are stopped at roadblocks.
• Checkpoints are typically publicized in advance and signs are posted at the approaches to the checkpoints warning drivers that a checkpoint is ahead.
• Vehicles are stopped in a specific sequence -- every third, fourth, fifth or sixth vehicle -- in order to avoid charges of racial profiling.
• The goal of checkpoints is not to make arrests, but to act as a deterrent. The publicity surrounding checkpoints reminds people not to drink and drive and can result in many groups designating a driver.
• Research shows that law-abiding people are sent on their way within minutes, with the average length of a stop equal to the cycle of a stoplight.
• Nearly 41 percent of the more than 17,000 auto crashes that led to fatalities in the U.S. in 2006 involved alcohol. Alcohol-related crashes cost society over $100 billion.
• Proponents say that checkpoints reduce drunk driving by close to 20 percent.

WISCONSIN SHOULD NOT HAVE SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE ...

• They violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "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."
• Innocent people are inconvenienced by checkpoints.
• Checkpoints take away the presumption of innocence, which is part of the foundation of our judicial system.
• Fewer than one percent of drivers stopped at checkpoints are arrested for drunk driving. Research shows that more conventional methods of law enforcement, including "saturation patrols" of problem areas, result in up to three times more arrests.
• Police often use sobriety checkpoints as a catalyst to write tickets for expired registration, motor vehicle code violations and other infractions. In this way, checkpoints become revenue generating operations for law enforcement agencies.
• Since drunk driving arrests have declined across the board since sobriety checkpoints have been used, even in states where checkpoints are not used, a case can be made that checkpoints weren't a major factor in the decline.
• The major risk in drunk driving cases comes from hardcore, repeat offenders. Checkpoints lump them in with people who may have had a second glass of wine at dinner.
• Checkpoints lead to hundreds of police hours and thousands of tax dollars.
• Because roadblocks often are publicized in advance, chronic alcohol abusers can plan alternate routes to avoid the areas. Groups like the ACLU feel that most drunk driving accidents are caused by repeat offenders, which speaks to a public health issue as much as a law enforcement issue. "If you want ot get drunks off the road, you have to address the addiction to alcohol," Ahmuty said.

Those are some basic arguments. Use the Talkback feature to let your voice be heard.