@firefly,
A little push back on this silliness..........
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53458336-90/butterfield-checkpoints-civil-driving.html.csp
A Utah lawmaker wants to do away with roadblocks that law enforcement uses to crack down on drunken drivers, saying they are ineffective and infringe on civil liberties.
"As legislators, we have to decide where the balance is," said freshman Rep. David Butterfield, R-Logan. "We have to decide where's the right balance between having every tool at your disposal and protecting civil liberties. And the data I've looked at show they're not effective for reducing DUI [cases]."
Butterfield's proposal ran into stiff opposition Monday from Utah's law enforcement community. The Law Enforcement Legislative Committee — which consists of police chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs and Highway Patrol — unanimously opposed the measure.
"This is, for whatever reason, the Legislature taking away a tool law enforcement uses to reduce the incidence of driving under the influence, both alcohol and drugs," said Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe, president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association.
If Butterfield's HB140 becomes law, police officers could stop a vehicle only if they have a warrant, if there is reasonable suspicion criminal activity has occurred, or if there is an emergency.
Checkpoints could still be used to investigate things such as wildlife violations or invasive species, provided the checkpoints are approved by a magistrate.
Keefe said Layton does two to three checkpoints a year. Each one has to have a written plan approved by a judge and notice of the checkpoint has to be published in advance. He is not aware of the process being abused, but if it were, the charges would presumably be thrown out.
"I would hate for us to lose the tool," Keefe said, "and why the Legislature would want to reduce law enforcement's ability under a judicially approved plan is beyond me."
As a member of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, Butterfield said every tool that is brought to the panel is pitched as a way to help law enforcement.
"We've got to be really careful," he said, "about how we infringe on the constitutional and civil liberties of our citizens."
Butterfield said he is convinced, from the data he has seen, that saturation patrols in critical areas are a more effective way to get drunken drivers off the road and a better use of officers.
Keefe said he agrees saturation patrols can be effective and noted his jurisdiction uses both.
Butterfield said that about a dozen states don't do checkpoints, either because they have been prohibited by statute or determined to violate the state's constitution.
The Utah Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of checkpoints in 2000 and found that they were constitutional if they follow clearly stated, reasonable rules — although in that case it tossed out a traffic stop that the justices said didn't follow the rules set up in the law.
Marina Lowe, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, said the ACLU has traditionally opposed checkpoints as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"You should have some suspicion," she said, "before you stop somebody and subject them to an intrusive search."
Art Brown, the state director of the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said high-visibility law enforcement deters drunk driving and prevents injuries or death.
"They are really effective in deterring people," he said. "It's really part of MADD's strategy to eliminate drunk driving to have high-visibility checkpoints."
[email protected]