PERSPECTIVES
The Michigan Daily Friday, May 30, 1986 Page 7
Sobriety checkpoints: A debate

Michigan Gov. James Blanchard recently signed legislation that
would allow police to establish sobriety checklanes in an attempt to
reduce the number of drunk drivers. Earlier this month, the police
conducted a sobriety checklane in Saginaw County, arresting two
allegedly drunk drivers. The American Civil Liberties Union has
filed a suit against the state, claiming that the checkpoints are un-
constitutional. Temporarily, the checkpoints have been suspended.
Sneeded deterrent

By Spencer Brown
In the past five years, public
awareness of drinking and driving
has increased dramatically. There
has been a national campaign
designed to decrease the number of
deaths on the nation's highways that
are caused by drunk drivers. This
war against drunk driving has been
waged in many forms. A majority of
states now have a drinking age of 21.
Many states have also enacted rigid
penalties for those who are caught
driving while under the influence of
alcohol. While the government and
the media as well as other groups
have tried to make the public more
aware that "drinking and driving do
not mix", it is clear that the problem
still exists and further steps must be
taken to eliminate drunken driving.
One program that has proven to be
effective is sobriety checkpoints on
local roads and state highways. The
checkpoints allow the police to stop
all cars, ask the driver questions, and
administer a breathalyzer test if the
police suspect the driver has been
drinking. In the past month, Michigan
has enacted a program which set up
the checkpoints on state roads. There
are few people who are opposed to
getting drunk drivers off the road, yet
the checkpoints have been met with
some resistance. Critics claim that
the checkpoints violate the search
and seizure clause of the fourth
Amendment and thus should not be
allowed. This is not true. The check-
points are an effective and legal way
to combat drunk driving and
Michigan should continue with its
plan to enact a program.
New Jersey and New York were
among the first states to use the
checkpoints, and in both cases the
results were positive. In New Jersey,
alcohol related deaths dropped by
43% between 1981-1984 and the num-
ber of drivers killed while driving
drunk decreased by 33%. Both of
these figures are ten percent below
the national average. According to
New Jersey Deputy Attorney
General, George Clark, the reason for
the decline was that "more in-
toxicated drivers are staying off the
road." Why? One reason has to be
that New Jersey's drunk driving laws
are among the stiffest in the nation.
People in New Jersey know that if
they are caught driving while under
the influence of alcohol they will face
stiff penalties. Drivers are also aware
that checkpoints increase the

possibility that a drunk driver will be
caught. Cizark says, "roadblocks by
the states and local police, and other
special programs since 1980, have
made the difference."
In New York, Westchester county
experienced similar results, as
alcohol related deaths decreased on
the counties highways after a sobriety
checkpoint system was instituted. In
the first six months of the program,
there was a 27 percent decline in
alcohol-related deaths during the
week and a 26 percent decline on the
weekends, compared to the five years
preceeding the program. The check-
points have proven to be effective in
New Jersey and New York; there is
no reason to believe the results will
not be similar in Michigan.
There is little doubt that sobriety
checkpoints save lives. Most critics of
the program do not dispute this. They
cite the "unconstitutionality" of the
program asa reason that it should not
be allowed. The Supreme Court has
already ruled that checkpoints are
legal. The Court set up guidelines the
police must follow after they pull a
driver over and test his blood alcohol
level. Even in this instance, the Court
stated that "a search is not
unreasonable if based on fact that
would justify the issuance of a
warrant, even though a warrant has
not actually been obtained." If the
police have probable cause to believe
than an automobile is carrying illegal
contraband, an officer can legally
search it and seize any illegal sub-
stances. There should be no problem
with the legality of the Michigan-
checkpoint program if the officials
stay within the bounds of their power.
Sobriety checkpoints are legal if
they do save lives. The only people
who have anything to fear from their
enactment are those who drink and
drive. Critics of the check-
points cite the Fourth Amen-
dment as a reason they should not be
allowed. As a proponent of the plan, I
would like to cite the Fifth Amen-
dment as a reason to go forward with
the plan. This Amendment states that
citizens of this country will not be
deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. Drunk
drivers threaten to strip Americans of
these three rights every time they
take their cars on the road. These
drivers must be stopped by every
available means.
Brown is an LSA senior
majoring in political science.

ByInnocent untilproven guilty
By Noelle Brower and what is next? Buses? Subways? The total cure cannot be expected over-
Beth Ferti average pedestrian is as much if not night.
g_ _ more of a threat to society than the How effective are the checkpoints
Often the measures taken to solve a average driver. According to the state themselves? The American Journal of
crisis seem justified by the severity of police, there were over 32,000 Criminal Law (Vol. 12, #2) cites
the situation at hand. But in a society aggravated assaults on the streets of studies that show the true ineffec-
that cherishes its civil liberties, one Michigan in 1985. Compare that with tiveness of sobriety checkpoints in
should always exhaust the least 800 alcohol-related deaths last year. states where they have been in-
restrictive means of coping with a This is not to belittle the problem of stituted. The list is astounding: Prin-
problem before instituting the drunk driving, but when does one ce George's County, Maryland - 2.5
strongest tactics. decide when a state of emergency has arrests per 1000 stopped; New York
One can see that the sobriety been reached which requires the State police cite only 1.25 arrests per
checkpoints are a definite invasion of violation of basic civil liberties? 1,000; Westchester County, N.Y. - 3.3
one's civil rights. At highway check- Proponents of the checkpoints arrests per 1,000. This week the
points, all drivers are asked where argue that this measure is necessary American Bar Association stated that
they are coming from, going to, and to combat the problem of drunk checkpoints "are not an efficient tac-
whether or not they have been driving, citing decreased alcohol- tic," and endorsed other, less restric-
drinking. Such interrogation renders related deaths in some states where tive solutions to the problem, such as
all drivers suspect regardless of their the checkpoints have been instituted. better education about the dangers of
actions. In the United States, a person However, they cannot prove a direct drunk driving and more severe
is innocent until proven guilty; link between the checkpoints and the restrictions on lawbreakers.
checkpoints imply that each driver is decreased number of deaths in any Clearly, drunk driving is a serious
potentially drunk, therefore putting state, offering only speculation. problem. However, it is one that
them on the spot to defend their ac- In the last several years, the gover- requires a more constructive solution
tions. nment and concerned groups have put than highway checkpoints. In attem-
Allowing state officials to stop an increased pressure upon the public pting to solve the problem, officials
innocent person without any grounds not to "drink and drive," using such should address its roots. Stop the
for suspicion is an invasion of in- devices as widespread national ad drunk person before he becomes the
dividual liberties, and fosters a campaigns. drunk driver by cracking down on the
"police state" mentality. Public Checkpoint proponents fail to fully bars and by inflicting greater
highways can be likened to public recognize the effectiveness of these penalties on drunk drivers. These are
sidewalks: every person is a potential other tactics, citing the decreased all a means of deterrence. Checkpoints
risk is the community. One never numbers as though they were the are but a stifling band-aid to a
knows who may be carrying a weapon result of checkpoints alone. In fact festering wound; one that needs a
or who may be mentally unstable. since 1980, alcohol-related deaths on more direct, effective cure that will
Therefore, would it be right to let the highways in Michigan have not result in a greater wrong.
police officers stop every person on decreased by 22% where there have
the street as a means of screening been no checkpoints at all. It seems as
those who may be potentially though the increased peer pressure on Brower and Fertig are the Dally
dangerous, for "the good of all?" And drivers has had positive results, buts Arts Editors.

Wo(ZQ1D ABOU
L _12 ~
J

04{-"THE1N Y'oURE W0r2P2P
ABOUtT ENEAFETY OF TE u
IMAONEQOF
THIRINSPE.cToRS
erMIN 1)