Uncivil Liberties in Maryland

MND ^ | Sunday, June 12, 2005 | Eva Ellsworth

[Nasty McPhilthy]

On June 2, Margaret Engel Adams and Kathy Phelan hosted an intergenerational party in the Phelan’s backyard. It was a celebration of their daughters’ graduations from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School. The party included a moon bounce, a popcorn machine and a blues band. Hotdogs, hamburgers, popcorn, s’mores, iced tea, sodas and fruit juice were served. The graduates’ families and friends were enjoying the party when Montgomery County (MD) police officers came to the door at approximately 9:30 PM. The officers stated that they were responding to a noise complaint. Rather than asking Phelan to turn the music down, the officers, who did not have a warrant, asked if they could Breathalyze party guests under the age of 21.

The officers were from the Alcohol Enforcement Section, a unit that concentrates on underage drinking. The offense this unit was concerned about was that teenagers had been observed drinking from plastic, party cups. We all know it is impossible to drink a non-alcoholic beverage from a disposable, plastic cup.

"Breathalyze the guests" is the type of party game that puts a damper on festivities regardless of whether the party included alcohol. Phelan refused the officers’ request because alcohol was not being served to minors. The officer in charge of the unit told Phelan that roadblocks would be set up at each end of her street if she refused. She told them that would be fine.

The roadblocks were set up. Breath tests were administered to teens leaving the party. None of the teens tested positive and no one was driving under the influence, so that should have been the end of it.

Things were far from over: The officers returned to the Phelans’ home and asked Mrs. Phelan to produce her drivers’ license despite the fact that she wasn’t driving. After she refused, the officers ticketed almost a dozen cars parked on the street for minor parking infractions. Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Phelan wrote letters to the Police Chief and several county officials requesting disciplinary action against the officers and apologies to their daughters. On June 6, Deputy Chief John King called Adams to apologize and let her know he is "looking into" the incident.

Have we become a society where it is acceptable for police to try to intimidate citizens into allowing entry into their homes and medical testing of the occupants? In this case, there was no evidence of underage drinking: No one appeared intoxicated. The noise complaint was a ruse since the officers never asked the hosts to turn the music down. The officers asked to test all guests under 21 rather than guests who appeared intoxicated. Has being young become evidence of law breaking?

The officers probably wouldn’t have issued parking tickets if Phelan had allowed them to Breathalyze the guests and had shown them her drivers’ license. She was not obligated to comply. Such entry and testing without a warrant is unreasonable search and seizure. As for the drivers’ license, have we becomes a "show me your papers" society?

Drunk driving is a public safety problem that is serious enough that sobriety checkpoints are acceptable. However, drinking and driving are not necessarily done together. They are separate issues. Underage drinking in and of itself is not enough of a threat to public safety to warrant violations of peoples’ civil liberties in the absence of concrete evidence.

According to the Montgomery County Police Department’s own website, in 2004, 18 murders, 139 forcible rapes, 967 aggravated assaults, 160 arsons and 788 robberies occurred in the county. With those numbers in mind, is disrupting a parentally supervised graduation party the best use of police time and manpower?

That wasn’t the only recent use of police time for minor violations. Maryland State Police borrowed night vision goggles from the military and spent three hours on June 1 scanning 3,200 vehicles for seat belt violations. They issued 111 $25.00 tickets. While $2,775.00 isn’t a bad haul for three hours, law enforcement should be about public safety rather than revenue. Governor Ehrlich did stop the use of night vision goggles for that purpose, but kept seat belt law enforcement a priority. Those who fail to use seat belts endanger themselves, but pose no risk to others. If this is a free country, shouldn’t people be free to be stupid?

Is a society where government agents can demand entry into homes and testing of occupants without warrants and can watch law abiding citizens, (of the cars scanned, 96.5% were not ticketed), with night vision goggles what the Founding Fathers had in mind? The violation of peoples’ civil liberties is worse when it is being done to find minor violations, giving little benefit to society as a whole. Police powers exist to protect society not to harass it.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Those who fail to use seat belts endanger themselves, but pose no risk to others. If this is a free country, shouldn’t people be free to be stupid?

AMEN to that! A society that aims to protect adults from their own idiocy does much more harm than good. What are we going to see next, doctors sending state troopers door-to-door to make sure all registered diabetics are taking their insulin, and hauling them off to jail if they refuse? Seriously, stories like this can make civil libertarians of the rightest of right-wingers.

I have no problem with people who want to be stupid and don't care if they're seriously maimed or killed. However, people who survive car crashes without having worn seatbelts are virtually always more seriously injured than those who do wear them. That means bigger medical bills, which translates to higher insurance costs for everyone. So, the stupidity of some leads to higher out-of-pocket insurance costs to everyone else.

Back when I had a car and had to pay for insurance, I always believed that those who wish to take such stupid risks should either form their insurance pool for idiots or at least get out of the one for sane people.

[Tabi Katz]

I'd have no objection to a separate or non-existent insurance pool for dummies, and I'd make it crystal clear that not a dime of government money would be spent on their care if they were to be injured. But the power-grabbing state officials who made these laws made no mention of insurance concerns at all, leaving one to believe they just want to play Daddy.