I was involved recently in an online discussion on my local news website regarding the DUI checkpoint issue. I am amazed at the attitudes expressed by many basically acquiescing their civil liberties. Glossed over by the multitude of sheep were facts I presented such as a ruling concerning sobriety checkpoints issued by the PA Supreme Court cited a study that showed that less than three quarters of one percent of all drivers stopped were guilty of any type of crime. I also referenced a Supreme Court ruling that came on an appeal of a Michigan case where the State Supreme Court found that DUI checkpoints were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Brennan wrote a minority opinon stating “that while stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving, it is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”
Justice Stevens comments were, “...and even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights.”
Unfortunately, they were minority opinions as a split decision led by Rehnquist boiled it down to the end justifying the means. Rehnquist later admitted the ruling violated a fundemental right leaving many to call it the DUI exception to the Constitution.
In one of my posts I paraphrased the Franklin quote about relinquishing freedom for security. One poster chided me for utilizing it, claiming people of my ilk take it "as if it’s some kind of cosmic law." I believe it is.
