Conservatism doesn't support unrestrained liberty. It recognizes the need for law and order.
You have no liberty interest to drive drunk. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when it is a term of your drivers license that you will submit to a breath screening test when asked. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
Okay, we've all been through this before.
Define "drunk".
And I never suggested that. What is drunk is up to interpretation. If your friends at MADD had their way Listerine mouthwash would land drivers in jail.
The right to travel freely in society unmolested by authorities for no reason is guaranteed by the Constitution. Checkpoints, like abortion and slavery and other legal abominations "upheld by courts" will some day be banished to history -- hopefully someday soon.
Do you believe it to be an effective use of scarce resources to net 2 drivers out of 100?
Do you know that more drunks are caught by good police work simply by observing traffic and targeting only those that appear to be impaired?
So, is .08 drunk? Or is it an arbitrary limit imposed by authorities in response to the shrillness of organizations like MADD?
Would you please describe for me the parameters of restrained liberty in your ideal world?