http://www.theagitator.com/archives/020990.php
Ever since he took office, Ahnold's sole obsession has been money over the welfare of the people. And local governments are following his lead.
In Sacramento, police are not using DWI checkpoints for DWI arrests; they are towing and impounding cars for such things as Driving while Suspended or even not having their drivers license with them.
According to the blog, a typical DWI checkpoint results in only 22 DWI arrests. However, they cited 315 people for having a suspended license or not having a license, while they impounded 259 cars.
KCRA-TV of Sacramento reports:
Aturo Torres said he was pulled over at a recent DUI checkpoint on Broadway in Sacramento, his pickup truck was impounded and all of his belongings moved to the curb, and yet, Torres said, he had not had a single drop of alcohol to drink that night.
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4468866/detail.html
Among other checkpoints cited in the story: Roseville: 9 DWI arrests, 37 citations, and 32 cars impounded. Vacaville: 0 DWI's, 44 citations, and 26 impoundments.
From KCRA:
Adding another layer of controversy is that many of those caught in DUI checkpoints -- such as Torres -- are undocumented immigrants. Immigrant rights groups say current law does not allow these people the chance to get a license legally and many can't afford to pay the $1,000 it takes when police impound their cars for not having a license.
"They lose their vehicle even though they're not drunk. That seems patently unfair to me," Mexican rights advocate Francisco Estrada said.
The local police chiefs say in the story they feel they have no choice in arresting these immigrants. This suggests that this is an attempt by Ahnold to bring Jim Crow to California.
Many immigrants cannot get licenses, which explains the reason why there is a disproportionate number getting their cars impounded.
DUIBlog, a libertarian blog critical of our nation's DWI laws, argues that sobriety checkpoints, even without the abuses involved, are ineffective in stopping DWI's. They quote a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study which states that conventional patrols are three times as likely to apprehend DWI suspects than checkpoints (http://www.duiblog.com/2005/04/20#a148).
In this post (http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/03#a159), DUIBlog correctly stated that sobriety checkpoints would lead to such abuses of power as Ahnold is allowing in California. He points out other practices that police are doing with these checkpoints, such as collecting data from people stopped. This worries me; is this a prelude to Patriot Act II or the CIA resuming domestic espionage?
Random Fate, a conservative blogger, worries (http://www.randomfate.net/archives/001236.html), and I agree, that people in charge will see things much differently than people not in charge; therefore, the government should not be in the business of collecting information.
I have a three-part test for what I think constitutes a valid function of government:
- Protect human rights.
- Preserve public order and safety.
- Provide for the welfare of those who can't provide for themselves.
Regarding sobriety checkpoints, the difficulty in this case is in reconciling 1 and 2. The Rehnquist Court came down on the side of 2, arguing that the government had a compelling public interest in attempting to eradicate DWI's because over half of all motor vehicle fatalities involve a drunk driver.
But how far should the government go in an effort to stop DWI's? Can the local police department arrest everyone in a bar and hold them in jail for 12 hours because the government has a compelling public interest in stopping DWI's?
The absurdity of the last scenario means there are limits on how far the government should be allowed to go in trying to stop DWI's.
On the other hand, there are limitations on 1 as well. You can't yell "fire!!" in a crowded theater. You must tell the truth in court. Advertisers must tell the truth in selling their products.
Therefore, I do not oppose the "compelling public interest" standard. However, I suggest that the government, in order to prove it, must be able to demonstrate in court that less restrictive methods would be ineffective. They should also explain how they would safeguard their policy from abuses such as the ones Ahnold is allowing in California.
Sobriety checkpoints should be abolished, because they do not meet these safeguards. They have not been shown to be more effective than conventional methods of catching DWI offenders that do not infringe on individual liberties. They are suceptible to abuse, such as impoundment for petty misdemeanors, racial profiling, and collection of information for domestic espionage.