Pubdate: Sat, 02 Dec 2000
Source: Corpus Christi Caller-Times (TX)
Copyright: 2000 Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Address: P.O. Box 9136, Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9136
Feedback: http://www.caller.com/commcentral/email_ed.htm
Website: http://www.caller.com/
Author: Editorial

THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE

U.S. Supreme Court Draws A Line On Police Intrusion

Traffic stops are familiar to South Texans. Anyone who has traveled
the highways of the region has encountered the Border Patrol
checkpoints where federal agents routinely question the occupants of
vehicles as to their citizenship. The stop is brief and, if all is in
order, motorists can quickly move on.

The border checkpoints are on roads that are direct links with the
Mexican border and the purpose of the checkpoints is narrowly focused
on stopping the flow of illegal immigration and contraband. In the
same way, police checkpoints for drunken drivers are directly tied to
safety on the road, though Texas does not sanction those stops.

There are sound reasons for the traffic stops, but even the most
ardent defender of the stops should be wary of the potential threat of
encroachment of police power over citizens' rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week drew the line on traffic stops and
underscored that just having a compelling reason for traffic stops
doesn't automatically trump a constitutional right to be free of
unreasonable police intrusion.

Indianapolis authorities believed they had an excellent reason for
traffic stops: fighting drugs. City police, trying to control a severe
drug problem, set up roadblocks in 1998 to search cars for illegal
drugs. During the four months that the stops were in operation, the
police made scores of arrests on drug charges. They also hauled in
their share of drunk drivers and wrote up a clutch of violations of
vehicle laws.

But the court, with Justice Sandra Day O'Conner writing the opinion
for the majority, said the results of the traffic stops weren't a good
enough reason to step on the Constitution.

"If this case were to rest on such a high level of generality, there
would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct
roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose," she
wrote.

There will always be "good" reasons for Americans to hand over their
constitutional protections. It will be argued that the threat of
terrorism or organized crime is so threatening as to merit warrantless
searches or unauthorized wiretaps or unrestricted surveillance. But
that stands the Constitution on its head, a document meant to protect
individual liberty by restraining government power.

That is what happened in Indianapolis where hundreds of motorists,
under no suspicion, had to undergo questioning and their vehicles were
subjected to drug-sniffing dogs before they were allowed to proceed.
The court's decision upheld a principle, one that has been much eroded
recently, that citizens have some right to be left alone in their
motor vehicles.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek