Let's leave the law about checkpoints on the shelf and consider the public reaction to them. I'd suggest that it depends on the purpose of the checkpoint, and the reactions of individuals. Let's take two examples: prison escapees and drunk drivers.

1. Prison escapees.

Because I live in God's Country (it's so far from everything earthly, it must be Heaven ), we have and have had, near the route between Hancock and Marquette, two state correctional facilities (one at Marquette and one at Baraga). When I was a kid (late 40s and early 50s) we traveled that route quite a bit. Several times, we ran into State Police checkpoints which did a thorough search of interior and trunk and ID'd occupants because prisoners had escaped. The primary thought was not that the drivers were likely to be accomplices of the escapees, but that an escapee might take a car hostage. Looking at it from that standpoint (obviously, my dad's standpoint), the checkpoints were for our protection and to get the bad guys - and some were very bad guys.

2. Drunken drivers.

Here, the sole purpose is to nail drunken drivers (let's say everybody agrees that drunken drivers are bad guys - degree of bad will vary). Now, some in the line of cars three miles long (seen that in WI) will say: "Hey, I'm not a drunk driver, and we should do everything to nail those buzzards." Others will say: "Hey, I'm not a drunk driver either, but I resent being classified as a possible drunk driver where there is no probable cause to think I am."

In the first case, most people will take it as a "we-we" situation. The State Trooper is on our side. In the second case, some will see it as "we-we"; but others will see it as "us-them". In that case, the State Trooper becomes an adversary.

Tricky things, cordoning off villages and interrogating the villagers. There are more subtle methods, but they take skill, time, patience and a bit of showmanship.

My take.

Mike