Yesterday, Gov. Jim Doyle got what he wanted for Christmas: a tougher drunk driving
law. And yet he's complaining even as he signs it into law. Why? It doesn't go far enough.
That's right, he's at it again - bemoaning the fact that he can't include mandatory sobriety checkpoints in the legislation. But what's wrong with them?, you say. Aren't they helpful? Aren't they just another tool for the police to use in their search for wrongdoers? That might be true if the police bothered to, say, abide by the Fourth Amendment and not use the
DUI roadblock as an excuse to not only search the vehicle illegally, but to harass and intimidate drivers while they're at it. I have nothing against police; I like them, and I think they have a tough job a lot of the time. However, my appreciation for them disappears when they start violating people's civil rights. A little back story:
In 1990, the Supreme Court overturned
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a landmark case where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled sobriety checkpoints illegal due to its violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even in overturning the case, the justices in both the majority and minority opinions
noted that it violated people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Apparently Justices Rehnquist, et al decided that the ends justified the means and that getting rid of those evil, evil people who had been drinking and driving was worth their
raping of one of our basic rights.
Now, I'm not in favor of people driving drunk; people who are seriously impaired should not be driving a go-kart, let alone a 2000+ pound vehicle. However, when you use a political agenda (like
MADD does)to stomp on people's Constitutional rights, then I draw the line. Arrest them; fine them; keep them off the streets if they're a menace to society. But you can do all of that without destroying people's civil rights. Many people - cops and legislators alike - seem to have either forgotten that or just overlooked it. And when those roadblocks fail to yield
any drunk drivers at all? Well, they're still keeping the roads safe. Oh, and generating revenue for the police department - purely a coincidence, I assure you. Move along - nothing to see here.
But, aren't police professionals? Aren't they held to higher standards? Don't they always abide by the law? Please. Ask anyone who lives in a large metropolitan area (think Chicago, L.A., NYC, Atlanta, etc.) just how trustworthy the police are. Unconsenting
blood draws are being advocated;
forced catheterization has happened in at least one reported instance; seat belt laws allow police to stop you any time, even you're part of a
funeral procession; police have forced
teens to drive drunk, then arrested them for it; meanwhile police departments
lie about DUI stop results; use vehicles confiscated from DUI stops for
personal use; cover up their own
wrongdoings, even when they're
appalling; and try to make their own officers
immune to disciplinary action. Oh, and Chief Justice John Roberts wants to
widen the drunk driving exception to the fourth amendment. But trust them, they wouldn't abuse their authority. Right?
I've had people ask me why I get so worked up about "protecting drunk drivers" (yes, someone actually said that to me once) by insisting that their rights be protected. The answer is simple: Just like everything else, if you give people power without oversight, it can and will be abused. And one day you might be on the receiving end.
