The War On Private Automobiles
The Supreme Court gave police leeway Tuesday to use random roadblocks to track down criminals.
Justices said in the 6-3 ruling that police checkpoint stops, when used to seek information about recent crimes, do not violate the privacy rights of other motorists.
The court overturned a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, which had ruled that it was not an emergency in 1997 when officers stopped cars at an intersection outside Chicago to pass out leaflets seeking information about a fatal hit-and-run.
Justice Stephen Bayer said that “police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs.”
Three justices, however, expressed concerns that the ruling could open up motorists to police interference without yielding information about crimes.
The Supreme Court continues to scare me. Apparently, if there is a specific crime and you are in an area deemed logistically close to the crime, you can be randomly stopped and interrogated.
January 13th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
SU, I’m sure you must realize what the word “interrogated” means in today’s colloquialistic society.
You can say the cop pulled me over, handed me a leaflet and asked me about a hit-and-run and call it an “interrogation” – and semanticly, I suppose you’d be correct.
But in today’s common usage – and the usage that springs to most every person’s mind – it would not have been an “interrogation”. At the most it was “questioning”.
There are a lot of terms you could use to inflame a situation, and “interrogation” is one of them – to most people, it invokes images of torture, physical violence, incarceration, bright lights, hot pokers and scan grids. That’s not even close to what’s happening here.
What the SU is permitting is for people to be stopped and questioned to see if they have any information pertaining to a crime. They’re not being “interrogated” by the common usage of the word, so why use it?
And trust me, if your child had been kidnapped and the police were stopping people to show pictures of him to passing motorists in attempts to find them, you’d think much differently.
Think in the abstract if you must, but consider real life situations and the justifications will crystalize.
No one’s rights are being violated, infringed, folded, spindled or mutilated here.
January 13th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Ok, maybe interogate is a strong word. If i am stopped at a road block, you have infringed my rights.
January 13th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
If i am stopped at a road block, you have infringed my rights.
Explain – cite which specific right has been violated? Wouldn’t bother me if it was done in immediate investigation of a crime.
January 13th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
January 13th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
Barry:
They’re not being “interrogated” by the common usage of the word, so why use it?
That’s just the libertarian way. Never use a word if you think you can get away with using a stronger word. This is why taxation is so often equated with “theft,” why questioning becomes an “interrogation,” etc.
However, on this issue, I agree with Uncle. It amounts to stopping people without probable cause, even if they’re only being stopped for a minute. And if my child is kidnapped, I’m about the last person who should be allowed to determine how the investigation goes — I’m too emotionally attached. Random questioning is a low-probability-of-return endeavor, and I seriously doubt it would do much good. You might get lucky, but almost certainly not, and at what cost?
Too many people already inherently distrust the police. Stopping them and questioning them –even briefly — about crimes to which they have absolutely no connection will only further erode that relationship.
January 13th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Asking motorists if they have information about a recent crime is neither a search nor a seizure. Nor, I might add, is it unreasonable.
January 13th, 2004 at 5:13 pm
Stopping me under the threat of chasing and arresting me if i choose not to comply and then looking into my car most definitely is. Do you think the police aren’t looking in cars?
It gets back to what tom says: people distrust police. Why? Because some police (not all, most are fine folks) will abuse powers granted to them in a minute.
January 13th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
Kind of like when they pull you over at 2am just to let you know “you have a tail light out sir…”
yeah…just a tail light huh…
January 14th, 2004 at 10:07 am
“Excuse me, ma’am – have you seen this child?”
No, sorry.
“Then have you seen a blue and white Ford Fairlane, license # AGS 425?”
No, I don’t think I have…
“All right, thanks for your time”.
(drives on)
..
Yeah, unreasonable search and seizure there. Yeah, plenty of reasons to continue distrusting the police there.
This rampant paranoia has to stop, otherwise you’ll all be hiding in your homes, guns in hand, expecting any moment for the door to come crashing in and the jack-booted thugs rush in.
That’s not liberty, that’s slavery. Slavery to a delusion.
January 14th, 2004 at 10:14 am
Sorry barry, i don’t lock myself in my home with guns in hand. Hate to ruin your disillusion. But if people like me aren’t keeping an eye on it now, it will get worse.
Or this scenario:
And you’re also leaving out the fact that in this case the roadblock may have caused an accident. THat traffic gets backed up. Etc.
It also overturns the previous precedent that such roadblocks should be used only in an emergency (which i’d be fine with, after all it’s a good idea to inform residents). But a roadblock just because it is convenient to the police to do so is bullshit!
January 14th, 2004 at 11:22 am
I said the paranioa needs to stop, or you’ll find yourself in that position eventually, not that you are now. If you were, you’d have no time to blog. And I don’t believe it will get worse without your being our watchdog, necessarily.
However, getting back to the discussion, it depends on if it’s a real roadblock or just a pullover like a sobriety checkpoint. Those may slow traffic down, but shouldn’t cause any more accidents than a construction zone.
And again, if the polics are searching for a lost child I’d glady sacrifice some time and convenience to lend a hand, and happily answer any questions they might have. And if they believe that someone in the area might have some information, that constitutes an emergency to me.
My freedoms and rights haven’t been violated in the slightest.
January 16th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
Here’s a more realistic exchange:
Of course, the last bit of the script may vary, especially with dumb criminals who say “sure, go ahead,” get arrested, and later claim their Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
January 16th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
Or the cops who say wait right there as he gets a judge to sign a warrant under the pretense that refusal to consent is probable cause.
January 16th, 2004 at 9:11 pm
Nah, they can’t do that. Existing case law is pretty clear on that point.