Roving Patrols Vs. Sobriety Checkpoints: Which Is Better?

We know that random breath testing (RBT) as it is practiced in much of the world, including Canada as the latest country to begin doing so in late 2018, would not pass Constitutional muster in the USA. (Not like the federally-coerced 21 drinking age law is really constitutional either, of course, but tyranny is always whimsical, it seems.)  So to achieve anything anywhere close to true RBT here, we basically have to get much more creative.

We thus asked Dr. Google which is more effective, roving patrols (aka saturation patrols) or stationary sobriety checkpoints:

Roving patrols (or saturation patrols) catch significantly more intoxicated drivers and cost far less per operation than stationary DUI checkpoints. [1, 2]

Comparison of Effectiveness

Arrest Rate: Roving patrols catch up to 10 times more legally intoxicated drivers than sobriety checkpoints. [1, 2]
Cost: A single DUI checkpoint costs between $8,000 and $10,000 to operate, whereas a roving patrol shift or alternative deployment can cost as little as $300. [1, 2]
Evasion: Because checkpoints are typically publicized or visible from a distance, impaired drivers frequently bypass them by using alternative back roads or navigation apps like Waze. Roving patrols actively hunt for erratic driving behavior on these exact city streets and secondary roads. [1, 2, 3]

Primary Purpose and Strategy

Checkpoints: Their main function is general deterrence and public awareness rather than high arrest counts. Proponents like traffic safety groups argue that visible roadblocks remind the public not to drink and drive. However, studies (such as those by the University of Maryland) note they often have limited impact on overall crash rates or long-term behavior changes. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Roving/Saturation Patrols: Their main function is direct enforcement and apprehension. Officers look for moving violations, weaving, speeding, or other signs of impairment. [1, 2, 3]

And Twenty-One Debunked currently believes:  why not both?  The two seem to be complementary to one another. As long as the Constitution is being properly followed, of course, we as a society really need to use every tool in our arsenal to finish the job and ultimately eradicate this impaired driving scourge for good.  At least until self-driving vehicles eventually make it all obsolete.