RIGHTS AND WRONGS

The local news media announced a day or so ago that the county mounties, super troopers and local police are going to hold 'sobriety checks' locally, while across the county, other departments are doing the same. Now I ask you, where is the probable cause? Constitutional guarantees against illegal search and seizure prevented this kind of foolishness at one time.

But you must understand that the very first time you applied for and received a drivers license, in whatever state, you gave up that right. While it has only recently (within the past ten or fifteen years) been practice for state dmv's to publish this information on paperwork, it has been a common practice to take that right since before I can remember, and that is sixty years ago.

In order for a police agency to obtain a search warrant, they must provide probable cause acceptable to a judge. This must state the name of the individual suspected and the alledged crime or misdemeanor that that individual has engaged in.

Does any competent police force have the names of any or all possible drivers on a specific part of a specific road at a specific time, and, if so, who among them may be guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Does this lack of knowledge give them the right to stop any and all drivers along a particular road and subject them to illegal search and potential seizure of them and their personal effects?

By God, I say no.

And I will forever say no up until the day I die or until the constitution is reworded by properly adopted amendment of that constitution by three quarters of the fifty states. To allow the government, whatever the level, to decide when and where they may enter private dwellings, automobiles, businesses, you name it, without the proper judicial proceedings prior, is giving away your most basic rights.

Probable cause is not what the police or other agency thinks may have occurred, is about to occur, or anything like it. It is a provable set of circumstances that provide a reasonable thinking adult to conclude that something has occurred or is about to occur. It must be person specific and time specific.

I don't think sobriety checks have proven to have probable cause. They are not specific to person, nor specific as to crime or misdemeanor that specific person has committed or may commit within that specific time frame. The U. S. Supreme Court disagrees. But they were wrong on Roe vs. Wade also, and a number of other more recent decisions, which have adversely affected your rights under the Constitution.

While I do not drink, much less drink and drive, I won't be directly affected by these sobriety checks, but I still believe that others will be adversely affected, and that is just plain wrong. And I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness, because most people don't seem to be upset in the least by this. But they will, eventually, when their last right is sacrificed for their last rite.