State v. Cloukey, 486 A.2d 143, 146-47 (Me.1985); Miller v. State, 373 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Miss.1979); State v. Shankle, 58 Or.App. 134, 137-38, 647 P.2d 959, 961-62 (1982). Furthermore, the arrest rates for the Taylor roadblock indicate that it was sufficiently productive of the licensing and registration interest. Sergeant Canty testified that forty-two cars were stopped at the Taylor roadblock over the ninety minute period, and two arrests were made for unauthorized use of an automobile (namely, appellant Taylor and his passenger), meaning that arrests occurred involving approximately 2.4 percent of the stopped vehicles. This would appear to satisfy the requirement that there be something more than “a complete absence of data” indicating effectiveness. Sitz, supra, 110 S.Ct. at 2487 (<HOLDING>); Delaware v. Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 659,
holding that sobriety checkpoints at which approximately 15 percent of the drivers passing through the checkpoint were arrested were sufficiently productive holding that a drivers knowledge that there are concealable weapons in the car available for the drivers use is evidence of possession holding that the seizure of motorists who were stopped at a sobriety checkpoint at which all vehicles were stopped was reasonable without individualized suspicion in light of the magnitude of the drunkdriving problem and the determination of law enforcement officials that such checkpoints were necessary to apprehend such individuals before tragedy strikes holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them holding that ready mobility existed when a car was capable of being driven even after the driver was arrested and despite the absence of other potential drivers