High court ducks roadblock issue

Josey1

High court ducks roadblock issueby Vin SuprynowiczOctober 19, 2001The 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 http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2706

salzo

Though conservative judges tend to be better for the second amendment, they are not very nice with respect to fourth and fifth amendment considerations.

badboybob

Not surprising from Ohio. That's the state that perfected the speed trap. It's just another way for them to garner fines from innocent people.

---

So many guns to buy. So little money.

salzo

BADBOYBOB- There is no such thing as innocent people.As far as the powers that be are concerned, We are all guilty of something.

barto

the oregon supreme court a few years back threw out a conviction for the same reason . they ruled it illegal search & seizure.i guess its a state thing,so far.at least til someone takes it to the u.s.supreme court.

turbo

These two characters cited for, having no driving licenses?No one can buy public liability insurance without a driver's license, most people could never cover serious damages cause by automobiles to private party or the liability coverages required by the law. It's against the law to drive without a valid driver's license, last time I checked."Public safety and order" outweighs private individual rights.If this was the case, no doubt these two birds tried to avert the roadblock, and were stopped and cited for this reason.Law abiding people don't need to act or feel guilty of anything, it's when grown ups act like little children , in trying to evade the long arm of the law.Driving with out a license is against the law, transporting firearms contrary to the law, makes you a lawbreaker.Ovbiously they appear to like living on the edge, they broke the law, they shouldn't be whining and crying..[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 10-20-2001).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 10-20-2001).]

salzo

Turbo - "Public safety and order outweighs private individual rights."......Says who? Is that somewhere in the constitution? I cant find it in the constitution, or any documentation of the founders and influences of our judicial system.Quite the contrary, our justice system was modeled after the english system, where the rights of the individual outweighed the interests of the state.[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 10-20-2001).]

turbo

Salzo,Driving is a privilige, not a RIGHT garaunteed by the constitution!I know you've heard this before.When people excersize their constitutional rights in a way that threatens the rights of law abiding citizens, those individual rights can be and should be curtailed.The health, safety and public welfare rights far exceed the individual right to drive contrary to established law in this case.I say get them off the road and keep them off, along with all others that drive without having drivers licenses or insurance..

turbo

By the way I stand corrected.Anyone can purchase a vehicle (in Kalifornia) whether they have a drivers license or not, and since the law requires all automobile owners to provide minimal insurance, they must and can purchase auto insurance.

salzo

Turbo- I understnad that driving is not a guaranteed right. But I have to wonder about fourth amendment violations of law abiding citizens at these "check points". I do not think we give up our guaranteed rights when we are doing something that we do not have a guaranteed right to do. If I was on a train, I think my I am still entitled to my rights even though I do not have a constitutional right to ride on a train. I do not think a cop can search me for no reason at all, simply because I am riding on a train.I just think it is too easy for the state to set up these check points to catch offenders. I realize it is difficult for law enforcement to catch these criminals, but I do not think the system was set up to make it "easy" for the Government to catch and apprehend those who break the law. The system was set up so that the rights of the citizen was higher than the interest of the state. The creators of our law sysytem recognized that if the states interests were paramount, the rights of the guilty and the INNOCENT would be violated.It is laughable when I hear people quote that old saying, "It is better that ten guilty men go free, then one innocent man found guilty". The words are noble, but the system does not really have that mentality.