The following tip thanks to the ever-vigilant Fred Ray.
From the Oakland Tribune yesterday:
Oakland police halt DUI checkpoints
Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses
Well, yes. I suppose they do.
In her opening paragraphs the Trib staff writer does, however, suggest an innovative new criminal defense:
OAKLAND — Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.
The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland’s streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.
“But, your honor, I otherwise obey the law….”
But, John, you’ve missed the best part of the story:
The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.
That is, “Latino community organizations” might be given advance notice of where the checkpoints will be, but no one else will. Wow.
DUI checkpoints are widely accepted because drunk drivers pose an immediate, mortal threat, but the police chief and councilman make clear that the stops are being used as a general law enforcement tool against unlicensed/uninsured drivers, drug dealers/buyers, “sideshows,” and presumably other illegal activity. Without a suspicion that the driver is under the influence, the police should not be able to request license and registration during these stops. To allow otherwise is to submit to police stopping us without cause, checking that our papers are in order, and casting about for illegal activity.
Nels,
I agree that a checkpoint shouldn’t involve searching vehicles without probable cause to believe that there are open containers, say. But all drivers are required to supply driver’s license and registration when asked by police. That does not seem unreasonable to me. What does seem unreasonable is the suggestion that one segment of the population be given advance warning of the location of checkpoints so as to evade them.
The illegal aliens are in status relation to the citizenry; yet a state’s subdivision would take that class and make a privileged order of them, with rights which citizens do not have. These officials’ anti-citizen and anti-patriotistic attitude is such, if the story is true, that they would try to make an entitled ignobility of such foreign criminals. States are not to grant titles of special class-status; this issue was supposed to have been decided a few hundred years ago.
But, Michelle, we don’t permit the police to randomly pull us over on the freeway, without cause, and demand to see a license and registration. It’s reasonable for police to ask to see identification, as you said, but only because we assume they have a reason for asking. DUI checkpoints at which drivers must show their identification before being suspected of being under the influence, with a lack of proper identification punishable without an accompanying DUI charge, is a way for the police to get around the limits we’ve placed on them. Either the roadblocks need to be renamed, making clear their purpose and reach, or the police need to suspect the driver of inebriation before examining papers.
A simple test would be to ask the people of Oakland if they’ll submit to “ID checkpoints” at which their license and registration will be reviewed for problems, and at which drivers can also be tested for DUI if the police are given cause for suspicion. My guess is they won’t like nearly as much this presentation of exactly the same thing.
Nels: Are you arguing against any type of checkpoint?
Nels, I take your point — drivers support sobriety checkpoints to a degree that they probably wouldn’t support “license checkpoints,” because a drunk driver is a more obvious menace than an unlicensed driver.
All the same, we do have this law: If you’re driving, you have to have your license with you. Does it make sense to enforce the law only when there is some other visible violation, or cause to suspect one? Frankly, I would’t have a problem with “ID checkpoints,” apart from the fact that the Oakland PD have much more important things to do with their time. (I lived there for several years, and while the Oakland cops were prompt and courteous the two times we were burglarized, it was obvious that they had no real hope of catching the thieves or recovering our stuff.)
No, mikem, I wouldn’t have much issue with a checkpoint at which the sobriety of drivers was assessed and, if the police reasonably suspected that an individual was inebriated that person would then be asked to present a license and registration. This would be similar to a police officer pulling over a weaving vehicle on suspicion of DUI.
And I support emergency checkpoints targeted at capturing specific kidnappers, escaped convicts, terrorists, etc. who might be fleeing the area following a crime.
Michelle, while “we do have this law,” our freedom is defined not only by our laws but also by the methods we permit for enforcing each of them. If the police were to set up checkpoints for the purpose of catching unlicensed drivers it would signal to me that serious crime was down and it was time to reduce the number of police officers.
Thanks for the reply, Nels.
Privacy rights/search and seizure are areas where I lack even amateur expertise. I have a problem with random stops because they won’t be truly random (given human nature) and seem somewhat oppressive. I have no problem with checkpoints (all vehicles) for almost any legitimate purpose. That would include checking license, registration and insurance, as long as they are not too invasive (drug dogs, vehicle searches). I just don’t see why it is so objectionable, although I recognize that people can reasonably have a greater or lesser level of concern. Whatever one believes, granting a free pass to a certain ethnic community is just idiotic and a not too subtle insult to the majority of that community who obey the law.