Pubdate: Wed, 20 Jun 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

DUBIOUS RANDOM DRUG CHECKS BY WESTMINSTER POLICE

Last week's drug checkpoint on U.S. 36 by Westminster police was wrong
in the same way raiding random homes would be.

If police pull a motorist over for a traffic violation, fine. That's
their job. But what if they pull someone over when their real desire
is to search the car for drugs - not because they have probable cause
but as part of a random drug checkpoint? That's what Westminster
police did last week, the Boulder Daily Camera reported. They set out
signs saying "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" on U.S. 36 and stopped 23 cars
for what police spokesman Trevor Materasso described as "some
identified violation."

The curious thing is, however, that only three tickets were issued.
Meanwhile, as the Camera explained, an unknown number of the cars were
searched "and one man was arrested on suspicion of felony marijuana
possession," meaning he was found with more than 12 ounces. Presumably
that man was selling it, and it's good to get such characters off the
street. But does that lone arrest justify stopping 22 others, the vast
majority of whom hadn't done anything that deserved a ticket? Call us
skeptical.

Materasso described the tactic as "a key public safety resource and
tool to do drug interdiction." Later, he told the Colorado Independent
that the drug interdiction checkpoint was "established based on
training provided by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and
Homeland Security, which has guidelines, protocols and procedures to
ensure Constitutional rights are not violated."

Yet just because a policy does not, strictly speaking, violate
constitutional rights hardly means it earns an A-plus for respecting
civil liberties. We realize that DUI sobriety checkpoints were found
constitutional by the Supreme Court years ago, under the dubious (in
our view) reasoning that the "minimal intrusion on individual
liberties" is overwhelmed by the interest in abating highway
accidents. But random stops to search for drugs have nothing to do
with highway safety. The public would be outraged if police selected
apartment buildings for random searches on the possibly correct
assumption that one of 20 apartments were likely to contain
contraband. We should reject random checks of cars for similar
reasons.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt