Please speak directly into the flashlight, Sir.
If you are looking for a way to get that final barbecue of the summer started, why not burn a copy of the 4th Amendment? That, in effect, is what the fine folks at Mothers Against Drunk Driving would have you do as they continue their celebration of something called National Sobriety Checkpoint Week.
What, you say you don’t know about this holiday? Well don’t worry. If the ladies of MADD and some of the nation’s police departments have anything to say about it (and believe me, they do), you will get to come to their party whether you like it or not.
According to their press release, MADD will be leading a nationwide mobilization of sobriety checkpoints over the Labor Day weekend to combat drunk driving. Citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, which I don’t dispute, the MADD ladies remind us that drinking and driving is wrong and dangerous, which I, of course, don’t dispute. But to counter the problem, they promise a national education and law-enforcement blitz featuring the widespread use of one of the most powerful weapons in the war on drunk driving, sobriety checkpoints.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in November that roadblocks in Indianapolis, which had been used to stop vehicles to check for illegal drugs, were unconstitutional. That ruling gave defenders of the 4th Amendment a small victory.
But the court also ruled that other roadblocks, such as sobriety checkpoints and the now prevalent license-and-registration checks, were OK. These latter ” your papers, please” stops have been justified on highway-safety grounds, since unlicensed drivers apparently cause more accidents.
But can someone tell me how being asked to show your identification and to discuss with police where you’ve been and where you’re going differs from being asked the same questions in a so-called “police state?” Having been stopped at checkpoints by machine-gun-wielding police in Argentina, Czechoslovakia and Cuba, I fail to find a great deal of difference in those state representatives being able to question me and representatives of my own government doing exactly the same thing. The reason we look at these countries as being repressive is that their citizens don’t have the constitutional guarantees we have. But when we forfeit those liberties for whatever cause, we regress toward precisely where they are.
Benjamin Franklin, who never got to celebrate National Sobriety Checkpoint Week, put it best: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I’m sure MADD defenders would argue that Franklin and the writers of the U.S. Constitution never had to deal with drunks behind the wheel of speeding automobiles, but that is just a matter of technology. Police also have automobiles and motorcycles. Saturation patrols, by specially trained drunk-driving teams, actually are a better deterrent to getting drunks off the road than roadblocks. In fairness, MADD also advocates these patrols, which most civil-liberty advocates have no problem endorsing.
The MADD release has one other little knife nestled into your freedoms. Some police officers will be utilizing new $600 state-of-the-art, passive alcohol sensing flashlights, donated by an insurance company. These technically questionable–and constitutionally reprehensible– devices allow police to give you a breath analysis without your knowledge or consent. At least 40 states already have these intrusive devices and their defenders are ready with the arguments that, again, this is just technology to help police get impaired drivers off the road. But these devices, like that new urban legend, the infallible drug-sniffing dog, do make mistakes. There is alcohol in perfume, aftershave and mouthwash that can cause a reading on these units.
Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union is taking a look at these flashlights. And in Wisconsin and other states, legislation is being introduced to outlaw their usage.
Legally, police officers can’t search your car without probable cause. You don’t have to answer police questions at checkpoints as to your whereabouts and what’s in your car. You are required to show them your license and registration. But roadblocks are meant to be intimidating, with flashing lights and dogs and lots of police. Most people are so happy just to get through that they allow their rights to be trampled.
The final argument from defenders of these tactics is that they are not a problem if you have nothing to hide, which, of course, is not the issue. If police are allowed to continue to expand their use of these methods to control the population, we are right where the framers of the Constitution wanted us not to be; at the mercy of authorities who may or may not have our best interests in mind. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the 1989 case that found some roadblocks constitutional.
Until that time, please speak directly into the flashlight . . . unless you have something to hide.
