Maximum liberty, it is only a crime if it directly harms another. That is my view of libertarianism. Unborn life, is still life. The crime against abortion would be first on the one who pulled the trigger, and secondly on she/he who hired the assassin. OTOH, no breathalyzer or blood tests or refusal to take them should be evidence against a driver. If the police cannot use common sense and their eyewitness testimony to convict, their isn’t a crime. After an accident, the only chance to decide intoxication is medical evidence of course. That would make checkpoints illegal, but maybe set up a single lane with cones in a snakelike pattern, and watch drivers go through. Evidence could be hitting or running over cones. A just system would be citizen against citizen is a criminal case. No State v blahbla blah. It should be moheetum v blahbla blah, or there is no crime, except in cases of murder.
I'm one of the few people who thinks driving while intoxicated shouldn't even be illegal unless it is tied to another crime or serious motor vehicle offense. This idea that the state can legally determine intoxication based on a blood-alcohol level that may have nothing to do with driving capability is preposterous.
That idea of criminal charges only involving individuals vs. criminals sounds nice, but it makes no sense. A crime is a crime not just against an individual, but against society as a whole. That approach you propose actually sounds very similar to the way criminal charges are adjudicated under sharia law.