This answers something I’ve wondered for a long time: how are sobriety checkpoints not a violation of the Constitution?
The Constitution says that “The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… but upon probable cause.” It seems pretty clear to me that the police pulling people over, even if it’s random, to check if they’re sober constitutes a search without probable cause.
It turns out that the SCOTUS has already decided this. In essence, Chief Justice Rehnquist admitted that the stops do constitute a search, but that the public good outweighs the need for probable cause. Therefore, they are legal despite being very clearly prohibited under the US Constitution.
There’s some hope, though, indicated towards the end of the linked article. The case originated in Michigan, which had ruled that they were unconstitutional. The ruling, obviously, was overturned by the SCOTUS. But Michigan’s Supreme Court ruling also said that they violated Michigan’s Constitution. Ergo, they’re still illegal in Michigan even though the US Constitution “doesn’t” prohibit them. (I never thought I’d use quotes in that way…)
It’s all about that word “unreasonable” and that is somewhat subjective. It comes into play when the courts have made rulings based on “expectations of privicy” as well. And there is that whole search at the airport thing which also seems like a search that could, perhaps should, be unreasonable and agaisnt the Constitution.
The problem is that I’m *very* opposed to DUI. (Err, not that anyone is *for* it, but I think the penalties need to be raised tremendously, for example.) So I’m against the checkpoints in an ‘academic’ sense, but the pragmatist in me almost likes them.
It’s a classic example of the ‘slippery slope’ argument, though: wouldn’t we also be safer if they stopped cars to check their trunks for drugs and bombs? And wouldn’t we, as a society, be safer if the police came around every few weeks to check peoples’ homes for dead bodies, pot plants, meth labs, and terrorist plans?
The slippery slope arguement is a good one because we see other examples all the time. We are starting to get more “guilty until proven innocent” laws. Even checking licences to buy alchohol and tobbaco is starting to concern me. A quick check seems ok and common sense but what next? Look at what has happened to buying some over the counter drugs lately. Because they can be used to make Meth one now has to show ID (and your licence is written down) and sign a paper before you can walk away with a $10 box of meds. IS that over the top? Many argue no but I would suggest yes.
(And now those who want to make Meth probably steal the meds…)