TheAgitator.com
Roadblocks in Prentiss
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007I’ll have more on Cory Maye’s case in a bit. But just a little nugget we discovered while we down there…
Several people told us that the Prentiss police department is setting up roadlbocks around town, where they’re stopping cars and running checks on licenses and outstanding warrants. Black we people spoke with said, as you might imagine, that they’re being disproportionately targeted by the roadblocks.
But even putting the racial stuff aside, I’m fairly sure this is illegal. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has only set aside two legal reasons for roadblock checkpoints: to check for DWI, and to check for illegal aliens or smuggling near the border. You might add to that roadblocks set up in areas where a fugitive is known to be on the loose. But roadblocks to run background checks or to check driver’s licenses are pretty clearly illegal. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled roadblocks designed to search for illegal drugs are unconstitutional.
It’s fairly common in Mississippi to have roadblocks to check driver’s licenses, registration, and vehicle inspection stickers; I think they’d do it around 1-2 times a month when I lived in Oxford. (By “they,” it was the local sheriff’s department; not sure if the city police did it too or not.) I don’t think they ran plates or licenses unless there was an obvious violation or you tried to evade the roadblock.
Now whether it’s legal or not I couldn’t say, but I know it happens on a fairly regular basis.
I think the standard that has been espoused in these cases is that road-blocks or check-points are ok if they are tied to looking for violations that are *directly related* to the operation of a motor vehicle. So DWI checks fall into that and I would imagine there is an argument that driver’s license checks do as well. DWI was the specific case where this rule was espoused but it did not say only DWI specifically - as I recall. Background checks tend to straddle that line though it would seem.
You are 100% right that check-points to check for random evidence of a crime or contraband are unconstitutional, and generally, authorities must have a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the car and it’s passengers have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime OR that there has been a motor vehicle violation (though the latter limits the scope of the stop).
Of course if it’s discriminatory based on race, or a pretext for some other, nefarious purpose, all bets are off.
Motor/civil violations? You mean revenue generating activities? I suggest they free up their time to investigate actual criminal activities that threaten the community rather than request more Fed grants for more cops. Some days you just want to say “I give up, deputize everyone, and give them all equipment to spy on their neighbors. That way the only people not in jail will be unemployed with nothing better to do than spy on everyone else. Wait, with all the working class in jail who will pay taxes?
“The Supreme Court.”
That’s rich.
How many divisions do they have?
Why doesn’t some civil liberties group stake out a few of these road blocks, and monitor their behavior? All they would need to do is keep stats on how many people were pulled over per road block, how expensive the car is, the race of the driver, and how long the driver had to deal with the police. They’d also have to control for the location, as cars being stopped in bad neighborhoods would probably get more harassed in general.
Check points ought to not be legal unless they are needed to catch a fugitive. Even the DUI angle is weak, since the easiest way to reduce the rate of DUIs is to start punishing people properly on their first offense.
The Supreme court has said that stopping all vehicles to check for licenses is fine, as vehicles are stopped by an object standard, not subject to the officer’s discretion.
The case ( DELAWARE v. PROUSE ) arose after the officer admitted there was no articulable suspicion - “I saw the car in the area and wasn’t answering any complaints, so I decided to pull them off.”
Basically he court found that police have to have a reason to pull you over - officer’s can not pull people over just because they feel like it. However the court did say that if you just stop everyone that would be fine:
Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. 26 Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.
from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=440&invol=648
So roadblocks are not allowed for ordinary crimes ( DUI again gets it’s own special constitutional exception ) because that would infringe upon the people’s rights. But stopping everyone to check their papers is fine. Police can also use license roadblocks to observe other violations - the expired tag or burned out tail light type revenue tickets that seem to be the real purpose for these road blocks.
MikeT,
I believe education goes further than punishment. If you educate people correctly about how to recognize the signs of impediment in their fellow friends, and show them the consequences of their actions (both punitive and what they could do to themselves/others), people will respond by not driving or allowing friends to drive under the influence.
I speak from personal experience. I used to DWI all the time before I got caught for speeding and had to do a reckless driving class in California (where 95% of the focus was on DWIs). After seeing those pictures/movies and hearing the personal testimonies of two victims of DWI (one who was the drunk driver and one who was a passenger in a car that was hit by a drunk driver), I’ve never again gotten behind the wheel after drinking and I do not allow my friends to do the same. It worked for me, it will work for others.
Now, as for the roadblocks, I believe local authorities should be allowed to be monitored by civil rights groups when they do these types of thing. Oversight is a good thing.
No idea which road blocks are legal. I recently encountered one run by the State Police. They looked at my tag and briefly scanned the inside of my car and finally told me “You are free to go”. Gee, thanks so much! They would not tell me what the checkpoint was about and acted just like so many cops: “Sir” at least once in every sentence, stern demeanor, but no answers. I bet if I acted like that, they’d call it “uncooperative”.
How did they reason that a suspicionless search is any more reasonable if everyone is subjected to it, I wonder?
Unconstitutional? What’s that? I thought everything the government wants to do is constitutional now. I mean, hasn’t it been decided by the decider-in-chief that it’s “just a goddam piece of paper”?
Radley,
I suspect that these roadblocks are constitutionally suspect. The Court found that drug checkpoints do not advance public safety to the same extent as DWI checkpoints, i.e. drunk people are drunk, but those in possession of drugs might be sober and therefore not a threat to others on the road.
I’m not gonna go reread Indianapolis v. Edmond right now, but my gut instinct is that checking drivers licenses would not meet the public safety interests that the Court has previously relied upon to justify the massively intrusive practice of stopping every car on the road.
Nonetheless, I’ve heard about similar practices elsewhere, particularly Indiana. I suspect that ACLU’s silence on this may have something to do with a fear of jeopardizing the Edmond decision.
Scott Morgan
Flex Your Rights
I currently have a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against four tribal police officers that partially addresses this issue. Unfortunately, there are several other issues tied up with it, including jurisdiction, that are clouding a clear legal analysis of the case. For those interested, I’ve fully documented the case at:
http://checkpointusa.org/roadblock/roadblock.html
In this case, the tribal police were working closely with the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs to conduct a joint task force roadblock operation where vehicles were being seized and searched, absent reasonable suspicion, for drunk drivers, narcotics, illegal aliens, stolen vehicles, seatbelt use, insurance and drivers license, full wants and warrants background checks, etc. In other words it was a dragnet law enforcement operation including multiple jurisdictions at the local and federal level.
Basically, I verbalized my concerns with being required to show identification at the roadblock after the police admitted they didn’t suspect me of violating any law. Shortly thereafter, I was dragged out of my vehicle and charged with multiple violations of state law by the tribal police.
I fought the charges in court for a year and had them dismissed with prejudice after the tribal police refused to obey a judicial subpoena for exculpatory records. I then turned around and sued the police officers in state court. The tribal police had the case removed to federal court where we’ve been arguing over issues of jurisdiction for the past four years.
The 9th circuit brief which summarizes the charade nicely can be found at:
http://checkpointusa.org/roadblock/lawsuit/docs/appeals/openingBrief.pdf
Additionally, I’ve been compiling general information and commentary regarding different kinds of checkpoints being conducted across the country at:
http://www.checkpointusa.org/
Hopefully those who are concerned about the rise in the use of suspicionless checkpoints against the traveling public will find this website useful and informative.
I think the first mistake a poster made was that it was ok if everyone was checked. Why would everyone be ok with being checked? Why do we need to prove our innocence? This doesn’t sound like the law enforcement we should have, more like fishing expeditions hoping criminals will fall in their lap. “Move along, nothing to see here” indeed. Legal don’t make it right.
I cannot agree with the presumption that it is OK for everyone to be checked. Would it be OK for warrantless home searches to be conducted if everyone on your block/neighborhood were subject to them? I highly doubt it. Why should your car be any different?
Leshrac / Nando
I wasn’t speaking from my point of view, but only quoting the supreme court case that specifically stated that it was ok to stop all cars for license checks. Personally I disagree, but until the supreme court reverses itself, that’s the law of the land.
Also, the courts have found that people of a lesser expectation of privacy in their cars than their homes for years. Again, that’s not how I would like it, but just the way it is right now. The only way to change it, is to elect a president that will nominate judges with a broader view of civil rights. Ok that’s not quite true - supporting the ACLU, IJ and other groups who wage legal battles for civil rights also helps. But if respect for civil liberties was a requirement for the federal bench, I think a lot of things in our country would be a lot better.