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.
You've got to be kidding, they'll bust you for whatever they find. Including an "unlicensed concealed firearm". Several years ago the scam was to set up "game check, checkpoints along I-80 in Nebraska at rest stops. Surprise, surpriser, in addition to game and parks rangers, they had DEA, BATF, State Patrol and other officers, just waiting to take your "business". In that case the main target was drugs, but they'd take what they could get.
"Compelling state interest" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Indeed. Perhaps the phrase is found in the same version that has "chilling effect" or "separation of church and state" or....
Looks like we need permission for more and more these days.
And we give,allow them to steal, almost half of our money to do this to us.
Is something wrong with this picture?
If it is OK to check for emissions stickers thewn it is OK to check for drunk drivers or drivers without licenses.
We expect these policemen and ladies to put their life on the line, which they do, then there must be a way to find the perps.
The ACLU sucks big time.
If you have nothing to hide, then, you have nothing to hide. To protect your fragile sensitivities, however, I suggest this: Place a mag scanner in each car or other dynamically linked device that will not allow your car to start if you haven't paid for your license and registration. They have these devices for people who fail to make their car payments, so lets get on with this.
So the safety of law enforcement trumps freedom and liberty and the constitution?
Does it say that in the constituiton anywhere?
Then they need to monitor every dwelling to make sure that no-one leaves with intent to commit any crime or violate any law.
What you are advocating is a police state.
Certainly not. But, I suspect the courts are justifying it with some rendition of the ol' "when you're on public property -- especially when you operate a two-ton implement of destruction on public property -- you implicitly agree to ... (blah, blah, blah) ... for the public good."
Again, the difference is public vs. private property. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying that's likely the justification, the product of a very loose interpretation of the Constitutional language (as we're used to seeing at every turn).
Thus, coming into our private residences would still be a huge step from what we have here, stopping vehicles on the public roadway.
We need to elect judges and sheriff's that will put a stop to check-points! - period.
This is exactly how cow-boy police like to think - Well, that is until they come across a "real" criminal and then they hide and quiver while innocent people are killed -
It's not ok to be detained by an armed agent of the state without probable cause to check for anything.
there must be a way to find the perps.
That "way" must observe the Constitution that created the authority they exercise. Roadblocks fail that test miserably.
bump
Also put a series of questions to be answered and checked by a government official before leaving home. If any are incorrect then all doors to your house are locked and the police just have to come and get you. Far safer for law enforcement.
Any officer throughout the day can re-ask any question and if the answer is not compatible then you are hiding something and are to be detained for further questioning. For the safety of law enforcement and the good of the public.
Exactly right - how people sit back and think the police are doing a service are just odd - With this reasoning - why don't we just let police from now on come into our homes (whenever they want) with no notice - just come in - I'm sure this would help stop a lot of domestic violence (so it must be worth it!!) -
In order to do that, we'll need to convince sufficient numbers of the sheeple that checkpoints are a bad idea. Good luck. ;O)
Sorry folks, but it's been happening for years now, and the SCOTUS has already signed-off on it.
Next stop - ID papers and internal passports.
Great idea! You seem like an accommodating fellow, perhaps you could volunteer for the pilot program.
Since you have nothing to hide, let's just install Lexan® walls in your home too. That way you won't impede the good officers ability to visually check your home for violations each afternoon.
I'm sure your hardy sensibilities would be fine with submitting a hair and stool sample once a month (hey, it's only 12 times a year!) to safeguard and verify your fitness to hold a job too. After all, mandatory drug testing as a condition for continued employment is no bother when you're not a drug user.
Maybe if we wish really hard some genius can create a health screening analyzer at every public place to insure that sick people aren't allowed to mingle with the rest of the sheep and infect the herd. The mandatory shock/obedience collars would keep us safe in our pens until we recouperate.
I'm glad we all have nothing to hide, it will make our chains rest so much easier for our masters er, benefactors.
Sheesh.
Somehow, I don't find this unreasonable. Just like I don't mind having my trunk checked when I cross into NYC through the Holland Tunnel. If random checks result in the arrest of drug runners, or terrorists about to set bombs off in restaurants or shopping malls, then I'm willing to sacrafice a little of my "rights" to be free of unreasonable searches. If you're driving on the highways, that presumes you have a valid drivers license. If a random check shows you don't have one and they find something illegal in your trunk -- tough for you.
Somehow, I am not surprised that someone who lives in Hillary country would think random fishing expeditions are 'okay' so long as everyone 'feels' safe.
So we're even.
Great. And you're always free to do so. When they ask to search your person or belongings, you should be happy to know you can consent to a search.
Problem is, the issue here isn't just your rights. It's the rights of others. And those rights aren't yours to sacrifice.
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.