This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
High court ducks roadblock
issue by Vin Suprynowicz October 19, 2001 The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 15 refused to hear an appeal in the case of
two Dayton, Ohio men cited for driving without licenses in 1998. Magus D. Orr and Andre L. Smith were ticketed in June 1998 at random local
police roadblocks. The men argued the stops were unconstitutional because police
had no particular reason to suspect specific criminal behavior. Nonetheless, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously upheld the roadblocks in May,
and the high court's refusal to intervene means the convictions now stand. "The idea that government agents may seize people at checkpoints without
having any suspicion of wrongdoing is very un-American," lawyers for the
two men wrote in asking the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. Dayton police stopped cars according to a prearranged pattern -- whether it
be every 10th car or every fourth -- after posting a sign 100 yards away warning
drivers they might be stopped. (In some cases, motorcycle police are then
stationed precisely to stop drivers who make U-turns or otherwise seek to avoid
the roadblocks -- their very avoidance being considered "suspicious
behavior.") In Dayton, police asked for a license, and if the driver had none the officer
ran a computer check. Approximately one in eight Dayton drivers were thus found
to have no valid license. Following the Supreme Court's decision not to review the case, "We
intend to do more checkpoints," announced Dayton city prosecutor Deirdre
Logan. Back when the Fourth Amendment was taken to mean what it says, it was widely
believed police needed a court warrant, or demonstrable "probable
cause" to believe a specific crime had been committed, before stopping and
detaining anyone. But in past rulings, the nation's highest court has watered
down that protection, allowing police to set up sobriety checkpoints aimed at
randomly detecting drunk drivers, as well as roadblocks as much as a hundred
miles from the border, intended to intercept illegal immigrants. In both those instances the court rationalized that the benefits to public
safety and order outweighed inconvenience and loss of privacy -- and with them
the erosion of our vital constitutional rights. Last year, the court did at least invalidate random checkpoints set up for no
purpose but to catch drug criminals, in its 6-3 ruling in Indianapolis vs.
Edmond. But that left the issue more clouded than ever, since what matters now
is apparently not what police do, but merely what reason they cite for doing it. It's regrettable the court did not seize this opportunity to restore our
Fourth Amendment to its previous grandeur as a bulwark of freedom. No one argues
police should be barred from pulling over a driver who's obviously intoxicated,
who's fleeing a crime scene, or from whose vehicle a kidnap victim cries out for
help. But the notion that police can stop anyone, at any time, and demand to see
our "papers please," moves us drastically closer to a totalitarian
police state. With our busy beaver legislators churning out endless new reams of
legislation, it's been truthfully said that few Americans can even get to work
in the morning without violating one or more obscure and new-minted edicts or
prohibitions. In a free country, spotting a policeman alongside the road should produce a
feeling of reassurance that "the man" is there to protect us from
wrongdoers, not guilty worries about whether we've just been spotted using a
cell phone, or failing to cinch up our seatbelts, or that we're about to be
nailed for any number of ways in which our "papers" might be out of
order. (Does the computer show we've paid our property taxes? Our child support?
Ducked jury duty? Whether the officer should humiliate us by forcing us to
unload our legally owned firearms ... seizing them if we're caught carrying one
with a serial number not properly listed on our "permit"? What do you
suppose they'll be able to program into that computer next year? Tax
liens? Delinquent student loans? Results of our last doctor's exam?) There are many reasons why the high court may decide to to turn down a
specific case -- here's hoping they're merely waiting for a better test to use
in throwing out these random roadblocks and checkpoints, entirely. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. To receive his longer, better stuff, subscribe to his monthly
newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno,
NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers:
Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224,
or via web site www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great
principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are
right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it
with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken This is a FREE distribution of Vin Suprynowicz' syndicated column 'The
Libertarian.' Permission to forward is granted, as long as you wait until the
embargo date listed at the top of each column, and keep ALL headers and footers
intact. To subscribe, just send an email to subscribe@thespiritof76.com
with "subscribe" in the subject line and your email address and
subscribe in the body of the text. We never rent or sell our subscription list
to anyone - ever! Please include your email address and unsubscribe in the body of the text. "They that would give up essential liberty for a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759 |
||||||||