The problem is that there is Supreme Court precedent allowing for the setting aside of the constitution for the sake of public safety.
In Michigan Department of Safety vs. Sitz (I think that’s right) decided under the Rhenquist court, they actually put a “balance” test to sobriety check points. Essentially the Court found that sobriety check points, which require all motorists to stop and be searched (or face penalties if they turn away, sound familiar?) were an infringement of 4th amendment rights. But the goal of public safety, according to them, outweighed the infringement.
Thus, the sobriety checkpoints were legal.
I imagine government lawyers will argue the same thing when challenged, and they’ll have precedent.
To be fair, in that same ruling, they stated a few ground rules for it to be constitutional. It’s not an “unreasonable search” if they don’t actually perform a search.
Basically, for DUI checkpoints, the most they can do is make you stop and ask you a few, limited, questions in order to gauge whether you’re drunk or not. If they think you are, then that’s reasonable suspicion and then they can test you.
However, they also can’t arrest for anything else at these checkpoints, because any search of the vehicle would basically be an illegal one. This is limiting enough that (some of) the court felt it wasn’t an unreasonable search as long as it was within limits.
Similarly, the TSA searches have been ruled reasonable by the courts as long as they have a specific goal. Admittedly, their goal is stupid huge (preventing terrorism), but there you have it. Example: TSA found a guy carrying a crack pipe and handing him over to local law enforcement. Guy won on the basis that the TSA had no right to search him for drugs or anything else not-related to terrorism, therefore the search was illegal, therefore the evidence was inadmissible. Similar cases have occurred several times, to the point where if the TSA find evidence of illegal activities not terrorism related, they’re *supposed* to ignore it entirely.
Not saying I agree, BTW, just saying that that is the rationale.
Rob Port says
The problem is that there is Supreme Court precedent allowing for the setting aside of the constitution for the sake of public safety.
In Michigan Department of Safety vs. Sitz (I think that’s right) decided under the Rhenquist court, they actually put a “balance” test to sobriety check points. Essentially the Court found that sobriety check points, which require all motorists to stop and be searched (or face penalties if they turn away, sound familiar?) were an infringement of 4th amendment rights. But the goal of public safety, according to them, outweighed the infringement.
Thus, the sobriety checkpoints were legal.
I imagine government lawyers will argue the same thing when challenged, and they’ll have precedent.
That’s the slippery slope they’ve put us on.
Otto says
To be fair, in that same ruling, they stated a few ground rules for it to be constitutional. It’s not an “unreasonable search” if they don’t actually perform a search.
Basically, for DUI checkpoints, the most they can do is make you stop and ask you a few, limited, questions in order to gauge whether you’re drunk or not. If they think you are, then that’s reasonable suspicion and then they can test you.
However, they also can’t arrest for anything else at these checkpoints, because any search of the vehicle would basically be an illegal one. This is limiting enough that (some of) the court felt it wasn’t an unreasonable search as long as it was within limits.
Similarly, the TSA searches have been ruled reasonable by the courts as long as they have a specific goal. Admittedly, their goal is stupid huge (preventing terrorism), but there you have it. Example: TSA found a guy carrying a crack pipe and handing him over to local law enforcement. Guy won on the basis that the TSA had no right to search him for drugs or anything else not-related to terrorism, therefore the search was illegal, therefore the evidence was inadmissible. Similar cases have occurred several times, to the point where if the TSA find evidence of illegal activities not terrorism related, they’re *supposed* to ignore it entirely.
Not saying I agree, BTW, just saying that that is the rationale.