Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: Goldsboro News-Argus (NC)
Copyright: 2000, Goldsboro News-Argus
Contact:  P.O. Box 10629, Goldsboro, N.C. 27532
Website: http://www.newsargus.com/index.html
Author: John Rains
Note: John Rains, a former News-Argus reporter, is now a writing coach
living in Durham.

THE COURT GOT IT RIGHT

The Supreme Court got it right this week in striking down police roadblocks 
set up to catch drug-law violations. In its 6-to-3 ruling, the court held 
that such roadblocks violate the privacy rights of innocent wayfarers. The 
court held that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search 
and seizure still has some meaning.

It was a piece of good news that shouldn't be overshadowed by the story of 
the presidential election-that-never-ends.

Maybe this ruling will be a step away from our descent into governmental 
lawlessness under the guise of prosecuting a so-called war on drugs, more 
correctly known as a price-support program for drug cartels and corrupt 
officials who get rich from the drug traffic. We can disagree about what 
the drug laws ought to be. In our view, drugs such as cocaine and heroin 
are bad business. People ought not to abuse themselves with drugs. In a 
perfect world, no one would.

But this is an imperfect world, and we ought not to let our loathing of 
drugs blind us to the consequences of misguided actions. In the name of 
fighting drugs, we have gone a long way toward creating Police State 
America. An America where even the innocent have come to fear the sight of 
blue lights flashing and police cars clustered at checkpoints on our highways.

This week's Supreme Court ruling is a welcome counterpoint to the trend, 
although it didn't go far enough.

One big disappointment was that the court's three principal conservatives 
voted in the minority. Their votes are another reminder that we ought to 
stop using the labels "liberal" and "conservative." They have come to mean 
nothing. What is "conservative" about voting for state power against 
individual freedom? And isn't it interesting how often our supposedly 
conservative justices find reasons to vote that way?

To his credit, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed some doubts. A Reuters 
story put it this way:

"Justice Clarence Thomas said the previous rulings on roadblocks to catch 
drunk drivers and illegal immigrants compelled the upholding of the drug 
checkpoints.

"But Thomas questioned whether the prior rulings should be overturned. He 
said he doubted whether the authors of the Constitution considered 
'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected 
of wrongdoing."

Justice Thomas should have voted with the Constitution's authors.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart