John,

Just have to reply to this one. I almost have to say wake up and smell the coffee! This item you sent me states "An old rule of thumb in political science teaches that when you transform a crime-detecting police force into a crime-preventing policing apparatus, you have created a police state." While this is probably a good standard to measure by, one has to ask how an occasional and timely strategic roadblock constitutes an unreasonable search and siezure?

Police roadblocks are typically performed on an infrequent basis and it is to ensure compliance with the laws. Such roadblocks are only routine and predictable on certain nights which have traditionally been associated with heavy drinking and driving. If checking a person’s right to be on a public road and getting those who have voluntarily rendered themselves incapacitated off the roads is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, then so is any inconvenience. By this standard, a speed limit on any road would qualify. So would standing in line at the DMV to get your vehicle registered or to renew your driver’s license. For that matter, requiring a driver’s license in the first place would also qualify. These nuisances are considered the price of living in today’s society. One could classify getting an intoxicated person off the road as preventative in nature, and to some degree it is. It would certainly be a crime, though one that has traditionally not seen sufficiently stiff sentences from the courts. However, it would be more appropriate to classify such an action as remedial. The individual has already engaged in an unlawful act by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. Such individuals are already guilty of a crime. The police are merely trying to limit the consequences of that crime.

The same can be said for others driving without a valid license, or those transporting contraband. While this poses a recognizable nuisance to some members of the public, it is welcome by those who have seen the consequences of injured or deceased loved ones.

It is possible that some police units engage in this a little more than appropriate, but that could be handled in ways other than legislating a strict ban on the roadblocks. Sorry if I got a little too verbal here, but you did ask for comments, and at least this does demonstrate that these mailings are actually read.
Sincerely,

Earl W.

*****************************

John Responds
Earl:
GREAT to hear from you and yes, I wonder sometimes if these musings really DO get read! The stuff I send is meant to stimulate thought, generate discussion and promote dialogue on the principles of liberty and self-governance. Your response is EXACTLY the kind of response I wish everybody would take the time to articulate!

You know that I am an ex-cop and, therefore, very pro-police. I am also very pro-constitution and 7/8 skeptical of ANYBODY who wields power, no matter how much they claim it is to my benefit (or my children's).

Although I am familiar with, and to an extent agree with, your "justifications," I recognize that before one can even get to justification, one must first acquiesce to the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the authority.

In other words, DO police have authority to stop (detain, arrest) a person without probably cause that a crime is, has been, or is about to be committed? Even if pro-active (preemptive) policing is beneficial to society, the authority to interfere in the freedom of movement of the citizens must originate somewhere. Fundamental question: What is the basis for the authority to stop?

If you agree that the current state of the law is different than the philosophical concepts articulated by our founders, then the argument is easily framed. How and when did it change? If there has been a philosophical shift in the foundations of our system of law and government (even if perceived to be generally good for the social order) can it be said that the change was consistent with the intent of the framers? Are we to be bound by the intent of the framers? If those historical principles are not the standards by which our future conduct should be judged, then by what standards?

Simply put, your position seems more likely to be tolerant of the exercise of police "authority" if the cost to the citizen is only "inconvenience" while the benefit to society is a heightened level of "safety." Is that accurate? Although there is a difference in our positions, it is only one of degree, and not great degree, at that.

I do not suggest that police must, in every circumstance, wait until a crime has been committed or the victim is injured or killed before they act. I DO insist that the principle employed as the foundation of any argument for more empowerment of the government is that the people, through their elected officials, authorize that empowerment in measured increments, subject to the constraints of the constitution, and ultimately, subject to the control of the public upon which the law is to be enforced. That principle would pass constitutional muster because it is entirely consistent with the intent of the founders. It is consistent because it preserves the essential checks and balances against the tyranny that history demonstrates over and again will emerge if those checks are absent.

The original article begins with the premise that citizen’s complaints are rising because the intervention by police is deemed excessive. The response from the police is your "inconvenience" argument. The principle thus called into question is: who is in charge here? Who is the servant and who is the master? Are constitutional checks and balances being maintained in government? That the questions are being asked is persuasive to me that the principles have been abandoned.

What say ye?

John

P.S. What are your thoughts on photo-monitoring of intersections and ticketing red-light violators on the basis of a photograph? How about laws requiring "smart-handgun" technology to be applied to all new (or exisiting) handguns for "safety" sake? Do you agree with mandatory seat-belts, motorcycle helmets, air-bags, etc?