A Republic, if you can keep it…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.”-The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

From Patriot Act allowances to Elliot Spitzer’s downfall, to DUI chekpoints or simple “consent searches”, the right of the people to be secure from unlawful government intrusion is not safe and has not been vouchsafed for quite some time. The big concern is how much more will those rights be eroded over the next few years, as it seems pretty unlikely that any of the erosion will ever be restored.

The seed of this current rant was planted when I researched the trials and tribulations of one Brett Darrow, a young college student from St. Louis, Missouri. It seems Mr. Darrow’s troubles started when he was allegedly assaulted by an off-duty police officer in 2005. Apparently after his filing a complaint about the officer’s (off-duty) conduct, he received a ticket (speeding?). A deal was reached between the parties, resulting in all charges against Darrow being dropped if he dropped his lawsuit against the police department.

Darrow was angry and wanted to do something about the police harassment he felt he had received after complaining about the officer who allegedly assaulted him, so he placed cameras and microphones in his 1997 Nissan Maxima and kept them rolling just about all the time. This resulted in two incidents that have made him a hero to some and a rabble-rousing punk to others. In September of 2007, he encountered a St. George Police Officer in a commuter lot, where he failed to properly respond to the officer’s questions regarding his activities. The result turned out to be quite nasty and ended the career of that officer in that town. You may read about it and view some of Darrow’s video here.

Darrow’s troubles continued in November of 2007 when he entered a DUI checkpoint and declined to explain his personal information to the checkpoint officers. This resulted in these officers threatening to “find something to charge him with” so they could take him to jail. All for merely standing up for his rights not to detail to them where he was going and what he was doing at the time of the stop. You may view this video and read the transcripts here.

Shortly after the last incident some threats were made about Mr. Darrow on a website entitled, “CopTalk”, a forum for police officers and wannabes, apparently. Later Darrow noticed a police car staking out his house. He also was cited by another St. George police officer for a traffic violation but the charges were dropped when he brought the video to the hearing to defend himself. You may read about this incident here.

The young Mr. Darrow obviously is making himself a target of the local police. He also is obviously looking for trouble. Still, as a private citizen, he is entitled to conduct himself as such without worrying about being harassed by the local constabulary just because he doesn’t want to chat it up with them while they are violating his fourth amendment rights. In this day and age, it seems, the fourth amendment is something of an implied, rather than a concrete stricture. These officers feel empowered to take such liberties with drivers for no reason except that they can, and they get away with it scott-free unless the driver has clear video and audio of the incident to back up his claims that the officer lied.

How do most people react when they are asked to “voluntarily” submit to a roadside search by a police officer? According to the Illinois State Police, 94 percent of white motorists and 96 percent of minority ones “consent” to such searches. These searches are voluntary because if the officers had any reasonable suspicion to allow an involuntary search they would conduct it without need of consent. Still most of us, when asked, submit. Why? Because it is under an implied threat of force. There is an inherent compulsion in an officer’s request, as well as a palpable intimidation. If you think this intimidation is without reason, you need only watch the videos of Mr. Darrow’s escapades to be corrected!

Blame the Patriot Act if you want, or the war on organized crime, the war on drugs or the war against drunk drivers. Whatever you consider the cause of these erosions of our privacy, keep in mind that it has been done to us by our own elected officials. The legislators that passed these laws or did not pass laws to prohibit these abuses as well as the sheriffs that conduct the searches and the prosecutors that conduct the trials are all elected by us to do this damage. Usually it is because we think they are only going to use these tools against “those people”. Those people who use drugs or drive loaded or aid and assist “terrorists”, or whatever despicable type of human being elicits the least sympathy.

Because we have so vilified drivers who drink, it is now acceptable to arrest them after they’ve only had one or two beers and couldn’t possibly be a danger to anyone. It’s their blood’s chemical makeup that makes them guilty, not their behavior. Recently, it was reported that the National Center for State Courts, an organization founded by former IUS Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger, had partnered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in an effort to promote “efficient disposal of traffic cases.” Apparently this means the judges are supposed to help the prosecutors in DUI cases! The center thinks the Courts have a role in decreasing the incidents of impaired driving. Most people used to think the Courts’ only role was to ensure a fair and impartial hearing in a trial procedure. That’s changed apparently!

This information and other items of interest related to the laws and their impact on drivers can be found at the excellent website, theNewspaper.com

What is the answer? How do we halt these erosions of our rights or-is it possible?-actually reverse these abuses and return to a more sensible era of personal rights and responsibilities? The answer is to elect people of character and integrity. It’s that simple!

Now, go do it!