When Sweet Home police ran a series of sting operations a few years ago targeting drivers who were ignoring the crosswalk laws, there was outcry from some local motorists – particularly those busted, who thought the tactic was a cheap shot.
Despite the outrage, though, all of us became a lot more alert to crosswalk regulations and, for quite a while, it was easier for pedestrians to cross the street without fear of being T-boned.
That effect has worn off, though, as some of us have noticed as we’ve dived back to the curb, out of the way of some thoughtless (or worse) oncoming driver.
The fact is, it’s easier to not do the right thing when we don’t think we’re going to get caught.
That’s the point being made by proponents of two bills working their way through the House of Representatives in Salem that propose amending the state constitution to allow police to set up roadblocks to catch drunken drivers. If the Legislature moves forward with this, the issue would be put before state voters in the next general election.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, Oregon is one of 12 states – including Washington and Idaho – that prohibit them based on statutes or from interpretation of state constitutions. In Oregon’s case, the state Supreme Court found them unconstitutional in 1987.
For those unfamiliar with sobriety checkpoints, they are traffic stops where law enforcement officers systematically select drivers to assess their level of alcohol impairment.
Along with our own Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio, one of the sponsors of the move is Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, who is a former Oregon State Police lieutenant. Two of the other five sponsors are also ex-cops.
Other backers include the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Oregon District Attorneys Association.
Opponents of the checkpoints, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, see them as infringements on the rights of state residents.
We live in a state, nestled among other states of like mind, that hold individual liberty in high esteem and view any restriction of our rights by government with deep suspicion, if not hostility. Many of our residents like what they can get from the government, but they don’t like their lifestyles being curtailed by it.
In fact, the reason why this is a by-lined column is that my colleague here in the newsroom, Sean Morgan, doesn’t agree. When we print non-bylined editorials, those represent an “institutional” opinion that, at a minimum, represents the view of the news staff – him and me.
However, Sean’s exact words are: “I absolutely oppose this proposal. If the officer has no reason to pull me over, he shouldn’t be pulling me over.
“‘If we’re not doing anything wrong,’ we shouldn’t worry about the police inspecting our homes randomly for contraband (which theoretically is contraband because of the harm it inflicts – like drunken driving).”
I get Sean’s point, on which he does not stand alone. But there’s a difference between police having the right to barge into your home anytime they feel like it, without a warant, and having the right to set up a checkpoint to nab someone who is violating the law by driving on the road with a blood alcohol level of higher than .08, which isn’t a real obvious level of visible intoxication for many people but still affects their driving abilities.
Unless you’re mixing up some sort of explosive concoction in your living room, that could level the neighborhood, most of what you do at home affects only you and anyone else in the home.
On the road it’s different. You can be irresponsible and take out anyone, at any time. Yes, it’s an infringement on our liberties, but liberty also requires responsibility. If no one got drunk and drove on our roads, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Fact is, sobriety checkpoints work. According to a 2002 review by the national Center for Disease Control of 23 scientifically sound studies on the issue, “sobriety checkpoints consistently reduced alcohol-related crashes, typically by about 20 percent. The results were similar regardless of how the checkpoints were conducted, and results were similar for short-term ‘blitzes’ or when checkpoints were used continuously for several years. This suggests that the effectiveness of checkpoints does not diminish over time.”
Those who have lived in states where checkpoints are allowed can attest to this. If you know you might get stopped unexpectedly and be questioned – and possibly tested – by police, you are less apt to get behind the wheel than if you know that all you have to do is drive a straight line when you pass that police car.
We can trot out all the other statistics, how 14,477 people were arrested in Oregon for drunken driving in 2009 and 115 died in crashes involving alcohol, how the risk of a single-vehicle accident is 11 times greater for a driver with a blood alcohol content of .08 compared to a driver who has consumed no alcohol – and 52 times greater for young males.
But the statistics aren’t really the issue here. The issue is whether it is an unconstitutional intrusion into our rights to live under the possibility that we might have to visit with a police officer on a highway somewhere at some unexpected time, simply to keep us honest when it comes to driving drunk.
We don’t think so. Drunk drivers aren’t just a danger to themselves. This isn’t about people sitting on their couches, consuming liquor. This is about people consuming liquor and then hopping behind the steering wheels of vehicles weighing around 1 ton or more and driving said vehicles down a road that some of the rest of us may also be traveling.
It’s like crosswalk stings. If that person you could slide by as she crosses the street could turn out to be the police chief’s secretary, and that nondescript car parked behind that store building might turn out to be a watching police officer, most of us are going to exercise more restraint when it comes to breaking the law.
That’s why we say we’re willing to live with sobriety checkpoints. If they save lives by causing otherwise wanton lawbreakers to think twice about endangering the public with their behavior, the slight impedance on our freedom is worth it as long as that’s where it stays.
If we’re not doing anything wrong, it shouldn’t be a problem to answer a few questions from a police officer and proceed on our merry ways.