Posted on 07/19/2004 1:29:52 PM PDT by JOAT
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. -- Police in Independence conducted a driver checkpoint on Thursday, but it wasn't to look for drunken drivers.
For about an hour Thursday afternoon, officers stopped vehicles to make sure drivers had valid licenses. But some are questioning the legality of holding such a checkpoint.
Independence police have arrested more than 1,300 drivers this year for driving without a valid license, KMBC's Jim Flink reported. On Thursday, police stopped about 300 drivers on a busy street.
Independence Officer Tom Gentry said drivers without licenses pose a safety concern.
"It's a public safety issue. On public highways, you don't want illegal drivers out there who might pose a grave danger," he said.
But Gentry added there are other reasons for wanting to make the stops.
"People who don't bother to get their driver's license or get them renewed -- usually that's an indicator of other problems as well," Gentry said.
Independence officers issued 10 tickets on Thursday, and they also arrested four people on outstanding warrants and one person for possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
But Dick Kurtenback, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he's troubled by police stopping drivers for this type of search.
"This bothers me -- they're conducting general searches without probable cause," he said. "I think the problem there is they're changing some essential aspects of this country's character, and I think it's troublesome that they're doing that."
Kurtenbach said the searches may violate people's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Some drivers with whom Flink spoke agreed.
"For public safety, I think it's all right. But it does kind of bother me, in the sense that I think it's an invasion of my personal liberty," driver T.K. Shiao said.
But motorist Jan Huff-Soper thought police were doing the right thing.
"It sounds like they have a lot of people driving without licenses, and I would hope people driving out there would have valid licenses," she said.
Police said the number of arrests this year proves the roadblocks work. The police department is basing its use of checkpoints on a Supreme Court case that allows DUI roadblocks in the interest of public safety.
Kurtenbach said drivers without licenses aren't inherently dangerous, even if they are breaking the law.
Unfortunately the change has been accomplished, it's just that the peasants are starting to become vaguely aware that something doesn't feel right.
Generally such roadblocks are not "just set up"
The courts have upheld them IF there is public notice and there is a mechanical means of determining who is checked. It also generally requires the rules are written beforehand. (and are produced upon any discovery request)
For example the rules may say every 5th auto is checked or 100% of auto's drivers are checked.
Are such matters abused, yes.
But there are hoops to set up such a scenario, otherwise the arrest gets tossed.
I should have added that IMHO any roadblock like this one is unconstitutional. It si unfortunate that the SCOTUS has been too busy finding a right to sodomy to protect our more fundamental political liberties.
Papieren, bitte...
Independence Officer Tom Gentry said drivers without licenses pose a safety concern. "It's a public safety issue. On public highways, you don't want illegal drivers "
BUT, illegal aliens are..... OK
Roger that.
We are quite a way down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
And because of the left's political correctness many aren't even looking at it.
Going downhill fast and blindfolded. Well some people are blindfolded. Many think the blindfold a sign of patriotism.
Wierd and dangerous.
The emperor has no clothes. To some at least.
"...People who don't bother to get their driver's license or get them renewed -- usually that's an indicator of other problems as well," Gentry said."
If you have nothing to hide etc., etc. They're just training the public to bob their heads to their masters.
I do not subscribe to that way of thinking.
I live in Missouri. The Missouri Constitution states,
Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 2,
"...that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry;"
What better example of a basic liberty than to be able travel freely on the roads that you have paid for (gasoline tax) in the automobile that you have purchased with the "gains of their own industry" without interference by government.
The same Article I, Section 2 continues,
"that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design."
I would say the city of Independence government has "failed in its chief design."
Every American is a potential criminal. We must be treated as such.
Not necessarily. Coming onto our private property without a valid reason is a huge step from interrupting us as we operate our cars on the public roads.
While there is debate about the latter, there is little doubt that the former is obviously prohibited in the Constitution.
The slope just gets slipperier and slipperier.
There has always been a balancing act on a question of constitional violations. What is balanced is the right being protected versus - and this is the key phrase, ladies and gentlemen - whether there is "a compelling state interest" in abrogating it. If the "state interest" is "compelling enough" then ANY constitutional right can go by the boards. And it is the courst who decide if the "interest" is sufficiently "compelling" to override the original protection.
And their definition broadens alll the time.
One of these days I'm going to write that non-fiction book for which I already have the title: "Courting Disaster"
Here in SW Missouri, the cops periodically do these inane "Click It or Ticket" fishin' trips. They set up roadblocks, and anyone passing through not wearing a seatbelt is given a ticket.
Of course, it's up to Uncle Watchful to make sure we use every safety device on the planet, so I propose we pass a law requiring Nomex flame-retardant driving suits, helmets, and rollcages in every passenger car. Can't be too careful.
"Compelling state interest" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Its use by the courts is pure usurpation of power. In effect it gives the government ability to amend the Constitution without going through the purposely difficult amendment process.
Constitutinal constraints on government were meant for especially when government had a compelling interest. When else would it act?
I'm sure when the nice officer asks for "your papers, please", he means both your DL and POI. More likely he/she asks for both by name, for the time being. Until we all get used to the pot being a few degrees warmer.
Can you show me where the probable cause is in a random stop and search for a document!
If they can justify that I'm quite confident someone will come with justification for anything else light years from probable cause.
If they can just stop you to check your drivers license, what if they come across a FOID card that has also EXPIRED. I mean if the cop just happens to see a glimmer of a FOID card while you are pulling out your drivers license, that would seem to indicate to him that maybe there are weapons in the vehicle, so it is only logical to assume that maybe you have a weapon at home too.
In Illinois, if you have guns in your home without a VALID FOID card, that is now a Class 4 felony. So, it is now possible they can use the expired FOID card as 'probable cause' to search your house for weapons and you be an instant convicted felon. Feel safer now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.