Sobriety Checkpoints… The New Deterrent for Drunk Driving In Texas?
Document Actions
On June 14, 1990, the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz regarding the constitutionality of a state program using sobriety checkpoints to prevent accidents caused by drunk drivers. The program was argued to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "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." Chief Justice Rehnquist penned the majority opinion summarizing "the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program." The Supreme Court held that the state's program was therefore consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Recently, there has been much attention paid to the number of DWI tickets written annually in the state of Texas since it held the number two spot in alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 and from 2000 to 2003 was number one. The Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission (TABC) has increased their task force attempting to make more arrests of patrons in bars to avoid the deadly mix of intoxication and driving. These efforts have recently been scaled back as a result of public outcry, and now the Texas legislature, which gave TABC additional funding to make these contested arrests, must find anther means to lower the number of alcohol-related fatalities. Notably, the Texas legislature could technically write a bill requesting the creation of a statewide governing body to "express authorization and implementation" of sobriety checkpoints as another means to reach their goal. Whether such legislation would pass remains to be seen, but the option is there for its creation.
Certainly, if such legislation were ever proposed, there would be those for and those against, but there comes a point where one must consider Justice Broussard's Dissent in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987), a case tried in California which held sobriety checkpoints were legal according to their state constitution. Justice Broussard disagreed with the decision stating, "To date we have not allowed mass detentions on the theory that these might prove useful in combating crime… While drunk driving is a revolting crime, it is not the only one which the community abhors. If we abandon constitutional protections to combat every abhorrent crime which has captured the public's attention, we will find ourselves naked and unprotected in a hurry."
Submitted
on 2006-04-27
in
|
Permalink |
TrackBack (0)
