-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- http://www.sltrib.com/02022000/utah/22548.htm Court Says Cops Can't Use Checkpoints to Check for Everything Wednesday, February 2, 2000 BY RAY RIVERA THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Sweeping, dragnet-style traffic checkpoints violate constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as a motorist's right to privacy, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The court left intact the checkpoint law, but said police can only inspect for specific violations directly related to road safety, such as drunken driving. Increasingly in recent years police have used traffic checkpoints to inspect for a broad swath of violations, including insurance certificates, seat belts and child restraints and vehicle equipment problems. "Such unbridled discretion for officers is inherently unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment [of the United States Constitution] and Article I, Section 14 [of the Utah Constitution]," Associate Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote for the 3-2 majority. "When many legal violations are searched for, the purpose of the checkpoint becomes less a highway safety measure and more a pretext to stop all vehicles to search for any and all violations of the law." The ruling does not apply to emergency roadblocks such as those set up to catch fleeing felons. Nor would it apply when there is specific cause for suspicion, such as illegal immigration near the state's borders. Police agencies were guarded in their comments Tuesday while their attorneys review the opinion. But several agencies indicated the decision could threaten public safety. "A lot of good has been done with our checkpoints," said Capt. Neil Porter of the Utah Highway Patrol. "We've taken a lot of drugs off the highway, picked up a lot of stolen cars, and we've taken a lot of people off the road that quite frankly you just don't want coming down the highway at you." The decision effectively reverses the conviction of Henry Thomas DeBooy, a Colorado man who was charged with possessing a small amount of hallucinogenic mushrooms after his BMW convertible was searched at a checkpoint near Lake Powell in 1997. The court threw out all evidence gathered against DeBooy at the checkpoint, ruling it was set up for too broad a list of purposes, violating his protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Durham was joined by retiring justices Michael D. Zimmerman and I. Daniel Stewart. Chief Justice Richard C. Howe and Justice Leonard Russon are expected to release a dissenting opinion later this week. DeBooy's attorney was jubilant. "This is exactly what I was hoping for," said Rosalie Reilly of Monticello. "It means you don't lose your Fourth Amendment protection just by getting in your car." Officers became suspicious when they noticed DeBooy slow down and pull toward the side of the road as he approached the checkpoint in southern Utah. The officers testified that DeBooy then raised his hand and threw something "very light" from the convertible. When they inspected, all they found was a crinkled tissue. DeBooy said the wind swept it from his hand, according to his attorney. The officers then asked if they could "take a quick look in the vehicle." They found the mushrooms in a backpack in the trunk. The high court rejected Reilly's motion to declare the checkpoint law unconstitutional. The justices said, however, that judges must strictly follow the guidelines set within the law before approving police applications to set up a checkpoint. The law requires that checkpoints: "Minimize the length of time the motorist will be delayed; minimize the intrusion of the inspection or inquiry; minimize the fears and anxiety the motorist will experience; and minimize the degree of discretion to be exercised by the individual enforcement officers operating the checkpoint." � Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. -- ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
