As of today the police take many liberties at it is. While we are are fortunate enough to live in a country that provides each individual with, in our eyes, fundamental rights in some cases it seems that the police or other agencies can contradict or undermine these rights. For example sobriety checkpoints are when the police will set up a station where people have to pull over so they can be checked if they're driving under the influence. But some may argue that these checkpoints are unconstitutional breaching our fourth amendment rights. However, one must take into account the state's interests to determine if it is just. I think its pretty interesting how our government is rooted in the words of the constitution but every so often can make a slight deviation from it to provide for its own interests, and in lots of these cases people are getting riled up over it. According to an article by the Chicago Tribune, these DUI checkpoints are very profitable for the police, and not as beneficial for the public and breach some of our constitutional rights (article). But, also there is the issue of drunk drivers which is actually a growing threat. Some argue that these checkpoints are necessary, and while it might infringe on our rights the state's interest in preventing drunk driving is a greater priority. What do you think? Should our rights be limited -a very small amount- to succumb to our state's interests, or should they never be infringed upon?
Interesting topic, Tyler. I guess the big questions for me are these: "do these traffic stops bring about a public good? And how do we measure whether or not there's a public good that comes out of this?"
ReplyDeleteAre there significantly fewer instances of drunk driving because of these? Might the police better serve community members in other capacities?