The study first describes the basic features of DWI roadblocks as they are currently conducted throughout the country, and then examines the major Supreme Court cases that comprise the law of roadblock search and seizure. Drawing from these cases, the note demonstrates that courts should sanction the conduct of certain roadblock stops initiated without individualized suspicion because of the lessened subjective intrusion and the limited discretion of field officers present in the conduct of these roadblocks. Several lower Federal and State court decisions since 'Prouse' are critiqued, and it is argued that the courts should consider the limitation of police discretion, not as an end in itself, but in relation to subjective intrusiveness. The note also discusses how a warrant requirement and the physical features of the DWI roadblock may limit subjective intrusiveness. Finally, it is argued that the most intrusive aspects of the DWI roadblock investigation must be justified on an individualized basis. A total of 22 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)