LETTERS: PERSONAL FREEDOMS ARE IMPORTANT

To the editor:

Recently the Southeast Missourian reported some local residents welcomed checkpoints manned by police to search for driver's licenses and proof of insurance as a means for determining compliance with certain state regulations. However, it would appear prudent enforcement of such regulations could be much more efficiently handled as a routine administrative function. It would, for example, seem to be a simple matter to check insurance records against vehicle plates to determine if a vehicle was insured without having to stop the vehicle.

In addition to being unnecessary, inefficient and probably ineffective, the procedure would be an intrusion upon local citizens who were stopped in the absence of any wrongdoing on their part. It is highly likely such checkpoints would also be declared unconstitutional. Authorities may not legally enter a home to search for contraband, firearms or housing-code violations without a search warrant. Historically, the legal community has viewed vehicles in a manner similar to an extension of one's dwelling. It is true there is slightly more latitude for some types of searches upon persons in vehicles, because there are conducted on public roads. However, rulings for searches and checkpoints have generally been upheld only when such checks demonstrate public safety consideration clearly outweighs the disadvantages and inconvenience to citizens involved in such searches.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that random stops of automobiles to check driver's licenses, vehicle registration and safety conditions were condemned as too intrusive into the individual's legitimate expectations of privacy, which was not outweighed by the degree to which random stops would advance the legitimate governmental interests involved.

Thus, with the exception of well-publicized sobriety checkpoints at clearly established locations and public awareness of the hours of operation, random stops of vehicles have consistently been declared illegal by most appellate courts. Indeed, many factors such as prior alcohol-related accident rates, proximity to liquor establishments and traffic patterns most likely to be taken by intoxicated persons must carefully be considered well in advance by law enforcement authorities prior to the establishment of such sobriety checkpoints. Such procedures are developed to minimize traffic disruptions for motorists. Most sobriety stops are established during late evening hours when the probability that drunk drivers will be on the road is greatest and on roads which they often travel. Only under such circumstances does the probability of frequently intoxicated motorists give cause for establishing such checkpoints. Clearly, these stops differ from the proposal to arbitrarily establish random stops for checking license and insurance verification.

One voice has stated a fundamental American freedom is the right to be left alone. If this is deemed to be true, certainly permitting checkpoints for license and insurance information, which only rarely results in identification of actual violations, is almost certain to be challenged on constitutional grounds. To me, it seems prudent to continue the requirement of probable cause as the only basis for stopping law-abiding citizens traveling on public roads. This seems to me what the Founding Fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.

Although it is likely the practice of license-check stops would readily be challenged on constitutional grounds, during the interim in which they were in effect the unnecessary delay, frustration and lost work time caused by such stops and related searches for documents would be inconvenient for many members of our community. Until it was formally declared illegal, the practice could also set precedence for further intrusion upon personal freedom. Only during periods of martial law or other bona fide emergency should we be stopped, detained or detoured by authorities without probably cause of some wrongdoing on our part. The basic civil expectation has been long upheld by prudent judges and readily understood by the average man.

Often, ideas and ideals which start out with the best of intentions wind up serving to intrude upon personal freedom. Personal freedoms are the basis for civil liberties. Only in emergencies or when actions affecting public health conflict with personal liberties should the public be asked to willingly relinquish hard-fought freedoms. On the surface, checking licenses and insurance cards of the motoring public doesn't seem like such a big deal, but the resulting implications are enormous.

JEWELL DRIVER

Cape Girardeau