DUI checkpoints annoy me, as does any abridgement of the Constitutional rights of Americans. The Fourth Amendment grants all citizens the right to go about their lives freely, without law enforcement interference, unless the police have probable cause that a law’s been broken. These checkpoints, however, are set up to give the police an opportunity to look for probable cause. Regardless, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise—Michigan v Sitz, 1990—stating that these checkpoints are a “reasonable” way of keeping other drivers safe. The Fourth Amendment contains no language referring to the protection of public safety.
There's nothing cops love more than court rulings that expand their powers. In some states, these roadblocks are called “safety checks.” Maintaining public safety is the most common law enforcement rationale for depriving people of their rights. There's been no great outcry against this practice—which involves police, without prior suspicion, demanding a driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance—because the perception is that “it's beneficial for society, so how could it be a bad?” Those who object to DUI checkpoints are often accused of valuing individual rights over public safety, which is ironic given the fact that that's exactly the intent of the Constitution.
The “for the greater good” arguments associated with utilitarianism, the philosophical school of thought promoting actions that maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. That's the idea behind all the government coercion associated with the Covid vaccine, under the guidance of Dr. Anthony Fauci, including shutting schools down, lockdowns, unscientific mask, distancing, and vaccine mandates, etc. These restrictions led to such absurdities as a man paddleboarding in the ocean off Malibu arrested and led away in handcuffs. The school lockdowns had much more severe consequences. The nation's youth, a group that didn't face serious danger from Covid, paid a heavy price, and they're still paying it.
The problem with governmental actions based on utilitarianism is that the Constitution was not constructed to maximize the common good. Rather, its primary purpose was the preservation of individual rights and limited government. While utilitarianism rests on the assumption that individuals are expected to make sacrifices for the greater good, this country was founded on the concept that the “greater good” isn’t to be achieved via the sacrifice of codified rights. This is the concept standing in the way of the “tyranny of the majority,” a risk in any system in which the majority rules. It wasn't a strong enough concept to prevent such atrocities as the government’s internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII, and the Jim Crow laws.
Utilitarianism and communism are outcome-focused collectivist philosophies, so it's no surprise that the Democrats, who are more sympathetic towards communism than the GOP, backed the heavy-handedness of the Covid lockdowns, while Republicans raised hell over them.
When panic prevails, it tilts the nation towards utilitarianism, despite what the Constitution says. Drunk driving causes about 13,000 deaths per year, so there’s no doubt that it’s a major problem. The question is whether or not stopping people without any suspicion of wrongdoing is an acceptable prophylactic approach. And if the Constitutional loophole that SCOTUS has created to allow law enforcement to detain drivers is based solely on deterring drunk driving, why are the police allowed to demand, as if this were a regular “traffic stop” involving probable cause, three documents that have nothing to do with that crime? The world history of police demanding “papers” from people stopped at random is chilling. There's not a shred of evidence connecting driving with an expired registration to DUI, which makes the Michigan v Sitz ruling even more egregious.
There are strategies to deal with DUI checkpoints. The police will ask questions—e.g. “Where are you coming from?”—in order to probe for signs of intoxication. They will also tell drivers to roll their windows all the way down in order to detect the odor of alcohol. Many cops will demand answers to their questions as a requirement to ending the detainment, insisting (lying) that it’s within their rights. Per the Fifth Amendment, it isn’t.
Drivers don't have to answer even one question. All they need do is hand over their license, registration, and proof of insurance in total silence. If drivers wish to say something, they can invoke their Constitutional right to not answer questions. While this upsets the police, it's legal. The police are allowed to lie to checkpoint detainees to get their way. The best defense against such dishonesty is to know your rights. Anyone concerned about a DUI arrest should realize that answering even one question is risky.
As the only legal requirement during these cavalier searches and seizures is to hand over three documents, there's no need to comply if a cop demands the window be rolled down completely. Once again, they may lie and say this demand is within their rights, but it isn’t. There's nothing in Michigan v. Sitz stipulating about how far the window must be rolled down. There are YouTube videos showing cops initially demanding answers to their questions and insisting that the driver roll down their window, and then giving up and waving the driver through.
There are videos of drivers cracking their windows just enough to hand over documents while not saying a word to the cop and still getting waved through. Drivers can choose to be “cooperative” (police jargon for “compliant”) by playing the cops’ game, or they can play their own game. It's a choice. However, anyone wishing to try this approach as a means of protest should be prepared for the worst-case scenario of the police violating their rights. Under the 1977 Pennsylvania v Mimms Supreme Court decision, police officers have plenty of leeway in ordering drivers out of their cars.
Many Americans believe that the benefit of getting drunk drivers off the road outweighs the protections against government intrusion afforded by the Fourth Amendment, but the Constitution doesn't provide law enforcement with a DUI-related loophole. That loophole was the product of an “activist,” utilitarian-leaning Supreme Court more concerned with results than citizen rights; more concerned with advancing its own beliefs than legal precedent or text of the law. The good news, for those who believe in constitutional rights, is that 12 states prohibit these “safety checks.” Further good news is that these are a mix of red and blue states.
Pushing back against judicial activism that makes unconstitutional police actions such as DUI roadblocks legal can get one labelled as selfish for undermining the greater good. But this nation wasn’t founded on John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. Rather, the Constitution reflects the enlightenment principles of John Locke, which emphasize personal liberties.
What right do the police have to know where anyone's coming from or where they're going? It's none of their business. That might be acceptable in a collectivist society like Japan, where citizens enjoy minimal protections against police actions, but not in the U.S.A.