The stop and check enforcement on drunk driving is authorized by the police power enforce procedure law, mainly based on ID check of police law Article 6 to Article 8 and nonconsensual blood test of Article 205-1 of the Criminal Procedural Law, for the foundation of punishment to maintain traffic safety and order. However, recently there were a lot of disputes of non-punishment cases or legal problems that need to be solved. For example, regarding police enforcing stop and check, Taiwan Taoyuan District court administrative litigation of year 2013 Number 293 court decision ordained the cancellation case of punishment on resisting drunk driving test. The Supreme Administrative Court year 2014 Number 174 decision ordained its legal opinion on ”…regulated the procedure for the police to perform sobriety tests on those suspected of driving under influence. If the subject refuses to take the sobriety test, the police should first try to advice against the refusal and inform the subject of the legal consequences of refusing the test. If the subject continues to refuse the sobriety test, a penalty shall be imposed.” Furthermore, discussion related to due process of law issues from refusing Breathalyzer Test to Nonconsensual Blood Test was performed. This study also referred the USA Federal Supreme Court case of Missouri v. McNeely (2013) which overruled the Schmerber v. California (1966) case. The Missouri v. McNeely (2013) case advocates the drunk driver should be taken to the hospital for further blood test without warrant when the drunk driver resists breathalyzer test. The statement above is worth of studying and referring to improve the law enforcement on drunk driving in Taiwan. Therefore, the object of this study is to investigate related police stop and check legal issues while enforcing DUI.