Again I apologize for the delay. Haven't been on here in a few days.
I can't prove an argument incorrect because legal arguments are not scientific experiments or mathematical proofs. The law is open to interpretation. As a prime example, every year the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices
issue one or more 5-4 decisions and sometimes 3-2-2-1 decisions or some other odd vote. Almost without fail every one of their majority, dissenting, plurality, and concurring opinions are well reasoned, articulate and persuasive.
I can, however, give you my opinion as to strengths and weaknesses of your argument.
I like your abrogation argument and trying to analogize Dodson. I don't think either Crowley or Overall are particularly helpful to you. Regarding Overall:
(1) Opinions from the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) have no binding precedential value. Thus, no court whether a district court or appellate court, even other COCA panels, is bound by their opinions. They are an intermediate appellate court not a "court of last resort" so they are inferior to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and generally thought of as inferior to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) although they are not in the same appellate pathway. Their persuasive precedential authority is particularly weak when it comes to interpretation of criminal laws.
(2) When COCA said in Overall that, "'Due and legal process' is another term for probable cause" it was correct in the context of that case because the plaintiffs were arrested, but incorrect as a blanket statement relating to all detentions. An extensive body of case law exists in Oklahoma relating to Terry stops, reasonable suspicion, and to a lesser extent traffic checkpoints. OCCA is not going to re-write decades of search and seizure jurisprudence based upon one poorly worded sentence
from a COCA opinion. The plaintiffs in Overall were arrested. They were not temporarily detained at a traffic checkpoint. Unfortunately, I believe relying on Overall would detract from your better arguments.
(3) Let me make a suggestion ... you are obviously extremely intelligent and are raising arguments many attorneys would not think to raise. However, I think your emotional attachment to the issue has you somewhat blinded to the counter-arguments. I would suggest you spend a day pretending to the government's attorney thinking about how you would counter your own arguments, and also maybe put yourself in the judge's shoes and see what arguments would be persuasive to you. Also, remember that the law is less technical than non-lawyers typically think. Most judges try to reach a "reasonable" interpretation of the law.
(4) If I were the government's attorney, I would argue that the purpose of 540B is not to abrogate Brantley or SCOTUS jurisprudence. The purpose is to criminalize and make it a felony offense to run those roadblocks set up for the purposes contained in 540B. If the legislature wished to abrogate Brantley and SCOTUS search & seizure law, they could have explicitly done so by saying no other roadblocks/checkpoints may be established. They did not.