Actually, you do need to ask the Court to declare these stops to enforce this law unconstitutional. While the similarities to DUI checkpoints are analogous, they are not identical. Since you are not disputing the evidence nor the law but means by which the law is enforced, you have the burden to argue the means of enforcement are a violation of Constitutional principles. The Supreme Courts of MN and the U.S. have established a precedent test for such instances which you will need to demonstrate applies to this case. That test is known as the Brown balancing test which was established in the case Brown v. Texas: 1) is a ‘stop’ considered a ‘seizure’ under the 4th amendment (yes, in all cases); 2) does the gravity of public concerns justified the seizure. In other words, is there a compelling govt interest? (as you point out, if DUI is not sufficient interest, then AIS probably isn’t either.); 3) how far an intrusion, or inconvenience, a checkpoint presented to the normal, law-abiding motorist is allowable to advance the govt interest.
With that said….You will not be able to represent yourself and win this argument. You must have a professional. A good one. You might find it useful to contact the MN ACLU.
I think it is debatable whether the DWI checkpoint case is not close enough for the lower court to go with that ruling on its face. Time will tell.
I am disputing the law, not just how it is enforced.
You are correct about the balancing test and those are points I’m prepared to argue, but I’m not including all details in all posts on this subject, both for brevity and, to some degree, strategy. 
I guess we disagree about whether a person can represent themselves (in county court). Not that I wouldn’t welcome someone representing all of us in this matter and/or helping me. That’s half the reason for me posting here in the first place.
Contacting the MN ACLU is a good idea. I’ve already done that, however, and as of now, haven’t heard back from them.
What I can tell you is that the MN Supreme Court was *very* clear about their stance on roadside checkpoints being unconstitutional, because there is no individualized suspicion of the people being stopped. They have referred back to this key point in cases since then and emphasized again that they believe strongly in this key point. In short, they weight the rights of a person much higher than SCOTUS does, when compared to the government’s interest, in the case of checkpoints, thus the balance goes the other way.
A lower court can either go with the logic of the higher court or it can ignore it. If it ignores it, that’s one reason we have appeals.
It is a pet peeve (that’s probably putting it lightly) of mine when government officials (if elected, swearing to uphold the constitution) know darn well that something is unconstitutional, yet they put it in place anyway, forcing it to finally make its way through the court system, harming people in the meantime. These officials are not accountable for these actions. That is a problem and it has led to the continued erosion of our rights, along with poor case law that has found its rationalization in mental gymnastics, such that very plain concepts from the 18th century (and well before) are now monkeybuttized into something completely unrecognizable for what they were.
That last rant wasn’t directed at you, WinnebagoViking. Sometimes you just have to vent. I appreciate you taking the time to post.
Thanks,
David
