State of Cape Cod

There's a better, fairer way…

Get 'em Off the Road!

On May 20 the Cape Cod Times published an item warning drivers that the police would mount a sobriety checkpoint on Cape Cod over the holiday weekend, specifically on Friday through Saturday. This precipitated a small furor in online forums between those who favored and those who opposed the plan. The acrimony increased when, on May 22, the article was repeated with the added, though ambiuous, stipulation that the cars stopped would not be arbitrary. The unofficial indication from the responses was that a large majority of the participants strongly supported the endeavor. The ramifications are multifaceted.

First of all, the idea of announcing an operation such as this in advance, in the opinion of many, dooms it to failure, especially when the time frame is published. Granted, the location was not disclosed but the words “Friday through Saturday” strongly indicated that it would take place Friday night from, say, dark until after the bars closed around 1:00 AM, which proved to be the case. Any imbiber worth his tipple would have driven early and stayed out until the wee hours of Saturday morning, or not driven at all that night which, in retrospect, may have been the objective. The Cape is not a big place but avoiding the checkpoint should not have been a problem if main roads and populous locales were avoided. The Hyannis area on or near the Mid Cape, the vicinity of Route 134 and Route 6 in Dennis, or Route 28 between the bridge and Falmouth might have been considered sites of high likelihood. The actual stops were set up in Yarmouth on "Routes 28, 6, and other roads in the vicinity". Involved were the State Police along with Yarmouth and Dennis forces so the Route 134 region sounds like a winner. Some 400 cars were stopped, 48 citations issued, and 13 arrests made, including one very drunk passenger.

But avoiding the checkpoint is not the real issue. One wonders whether stopping cars and questioning drivers and passengers without probable cause should even be contemplated in this allegedly free country. Many feel it to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment which purports to protect us against illegal search and seizure. Before the derogatory comments start flying this way, note that there is little doubt the issue has been tested in the courts and found to be legal. If so, it falls into the large category of judicial decisions with which many disagree. Gay marriage, abortion, taking the Ten Commandments out of public buildings, and removing 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance come to mind, among others. While driving is considered a privilege and not a right, traveling without fear of police interference unless there is probable cause is our right in this country. Nonetheless, if it is the law we must abide by it.

It is incomprehensible that stopping some four hundred cars without cause, simply to see if the driver might be inebriated, is routinely condoned, even applauded, by many of our citizens including, I'm sure, a large number who railed against the Patriot Act, which was directed only at foregners. We'll never know if any potentially serious consequences have been avoided in the present case, although only thirteen arrests were made, an underwhelming percentage. If the intention is to get drunk drivers off the road as is claimed, then seeking them with roadblocks won't do it. Even if a significant number of offenders were to be found and arrested, there would still be no assurance that they would be removed from the highways, or punished at all, the judicial system being what it is.

The solution rests with the courts, not the police, and one need only note the number of multiple OUI offenders involved in motor vehicle mishaps to conclude that perhaps the judges aren't carrying their share of the load. That being the case, no amount of road blocks, money, and police man hours can have any significant influence on the potential killers on our roads. The effort and expense might be more productively expended by reforming the way our judges serve.

Electing judges instead of appointing them, as some advocate, would only result in perpetual campaigning from the bench. One alternative might be to appoint judges, just as is presently done, but to subject them to a vote of confidence after a specified term, perhaps a year or two. Just an up or down vote. Losers would be unseated and new appointments made. No election and no campaigning. It could result in stiffer and more consistent sentencing for all offenses and might get, and keep, more drunks off the road. It's something to think about. If a judge knows that the public can vote him off the bench based upon his public record he might give more thought to his sentencing decisions.

 
Visit:  Non Illegitimi Carborundum