Do Oregon Politicians Want a Police State?

Legislation to allow sobriety checkpoints by Oregon law enforcement agencies to be heard in committee Thursday.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Just when you wondered if you had any civil rights left, we learn that the state of Oregon is contemplating the establishment of checkpoints where police can legally violate your rights with the blessing of the law.

At sobriety checkpoints, drivers are stopped without reasonable suspicion, and can be tested summarily and without probable cause. I've talked to police officers who agree that it isn't very American.

It's something you would expect in Nevada or Texas, but not in Oregon. Fortunately, the voters will have a say in it.

It looks like the secret unmarked police cars doing traffic enforcement on our streets and highways aren't enough of a problem. Trust me, that shouldn't be allowed either. Members of our legislature are so completely out of touch with reality and our rights that they would vote for anything if they thought it made them look good.

Police need to do their job the way they always have; by responding to crime rather than anticipating it.

Trapping innocent people in checkpoints is reminiscent of tactics used in Communist countries and in parts of Mexico and Afghanistan. No Oregonians should be subjected to these violations at the hand of their government.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear legislation Thursday morning that would allow law enforcement agencies to conduct these so-called "sobriety checkpoints".

Senate Joint Resolution 7 would refer the issue to Oregon voters during the state’s next primary election in 2010. That will give us all plenty of time for people here to find a trustworthy state they can live in.

Oregon politicians like Senator Rod Monroe, a Democrat from Portland, are trying to lower Oregon drivers into the vat.

"Checkpoints are an important tool to keep our streets safe from dangerous impaired drivers," he said. Monroe is the chief sponsor of the bill.

He says, "It’s time for the voters of Oregon to decide whether they support sobriety checkpoints."

With luck, that decision will be a resounding "no" and in the end will probably go down as another huge expenditure or waste, of time and taxpayer money. If you let people like Monroe go long enough, and you won't have any rights left at all.

Oregon actually has an established history of supporting its citizens rights on this issue in the past; in fact a 1987 Oregon Supreme Court ruling barred police from conducting sobriety checkpoints.

But Monroe doesn't appreciate the decision of our state's highest court. He wants Oregon voters to amend the state constitution, allowing law enforcement to once again utilize checkpoints to stop drivers who have no reason to be stopped and questioned by police.

At this time according to Wikipedia, 38 U.S. states and the District of Columbia currently allow sobriety checkpoints. The United States Supreme Court has found them to be constitutional.

Michigan's Supreme Court ruled that sobriety roadblocks are be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this constitutional right.

On the other hand, Justice Stevens who dissented, countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

Those interested in attending The first public hearing of SJR 7 in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the state capitol, should mark their calendars for Thursday, April 2nd at 8:30 a.m. It takes place in Room 343, Oregon State Capitol, Salem, Oregon.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Carrick April 2, 2009 1:41 pm (Pacific time)

No doubt Obama will replace one, maybe even two Supreme Court Judges, but it won't really impact their present decision trend. I shudder to think what would have happened to our 2nd Amendment if there was a more non-constitutional interpretation trend. These roadblocks are the pits when it comes to delaying, but expect more and more spot checks as crime continues to rise this summer if unemployment continues to rise. Does anyone know of any country who has ever spent their way into prosperity? So expect higher taxes and more unemployment, more drinking and driving and more roadblocks, both car and pedestrian.

miller April 2, 2009 2:03 am (Pacific time)

Great idea. Get these dunks off the road. And while you at it, check their legal status too.

Hey miller, or conservative, or Mr. Me (all names you have used recently) , thanks for your thoughts, but pleasse get help for you schizophrenia, OK?

re: Do It April 1, 2009 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

Do it - Why don't you move to China? They are far closer to what you seek.

Henry Ruark April 1, 2009 1:46 pm (Pacific time)

Just be happy the Supremes are not more hypocritical than they are now. O's first couple of replaceements, sure to come due to age and possible pending resignation, should set the bench for more truly Constitutional action --solid reason to suppor his ongoing actions NOW to guarantee such change WILL come, and from the right direction --small-r !!

Ron April 1, 2009 1:11 pm (Pacific time)

I've been in law enforcement for 27 yrs and it has change from catching crooks to making money for the government. Changing the blood alcohol for .20 to .08 was mainly to increase cash. If you are stopped at a check point and have the odor of alcohol on your breath, you'll above .08. In some states the fine money is going to groups such as MADD and other non-profits. The police have turned into a cash cow for government and when they computerize it with photo-radar and photo-redlight it well be like the government having there own slot machine.

Vic April 1, 2009 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

"Do It" ..you would have loved the old Soviet Union. Can you read? The checkpoints are supposed to be for drunk driving, not immigration status checks, or anything else. Your response pinpoints exactly why this draconian measure should be shot down. In Alabama they came up with these checkpoints supposedly to combat "gang violence"..but what ensued was anything but gang related. If the cops didnt like your looks, they would ask to search your car..if you refused, that was considered probable cause to detain you and get the canine units there and search your car. Never mind that the "gangs" they were allegedly targeting were 100% black..whites, Hispanics and Asians alike had to wait for up to ten minutes while your plates and licenses were run. This is about REVENUE...separating us from our money. The "gang checkpoints" in Alabama didnt net any gangs, but did result in a lot of traffic tickets for burnt out taillights, noisy mufflers (my brother got one of those) and basically was nothing more than a cash cow for the Birmingham police. "Do It"..maybe you should move to the West Bank if you love violation of basic rights, and being forced to wait at checkpoints even when you have done nothing wrong. Come to think of it, your racist attitude would be at home in Alabama..maybe you should move there.

Do It April 1, 2009 9:59 am (Pacific time)

I think it's a good idea. We need even more stringent policies that allow for verification for citizenship, travel visa's, green cards, or whatever to assure that we have people here lawfully. Put in effect spot checks anytime, anywhere. Then allow this policy to sunset in some reasonable time frame, maybe one to two years. If it looks like it has achieved the desire results then vacate the policy completely. With freedom comes responsibility for if we don't enforce the laws now we will lose our freedoms. We have bad people walking our streets and a policy like that will get them off our streets.

Timmy April 1, 2009 8:46 am (Pacific time)

I live in Nevada, where this is done occasionaly, on the city streets. The funny thing is, they always have a news story preceeding the event, telling where and when they will be conducting it, and its easy to see from blocks away, where they are, leaving plastered drivers plenty of time to turn off, and go down a different street. Still, for reasons I can't understand, they still claim to arrest many drivers each time for dui, or drug infractions. I have driven through a few of these, just to see what was up, and was politely handed a pamphlet explaing the work they were doing. Im not condoning it, but as I said, I cant understand why a truly drunk driver would even drive through it.

Tim King: I was the assignment editor at FOX-5 in Henderson and Las Vegas Metro Police does send out media alerts as you said. It seemed to certainly reduce the effectiveness of the whole program. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dude April 1, 2009 8:43 am (Pacific time)

Why does the government want to take away our freedoms so bad? They are relentless in their pursuit of power and control, regardless of whether they play for the republicans or democrats. At what point do the tyrants become defined as revolutionary usurpers of our very Liberty?

dee cullen April 1, 2009 7:49 am (Pacific time)

This is total B.S .whats next. why dont they go fight crime ,not add to it. Just more money in their pockets and even more out of ours!

Vic April 1, 2009 7:03 am (Pacific time)

Welcome to the West Bank! Call this pasty-faced little fascist and let him know what you think! 503-986-1724

Conservative? March 31, 2009 10:35 pm (Pacific time)

Yah conservatives never take away constitutional rights to protect safety do they?

CheckpointMinion March 31, 2009 10:07 pm (Pacific time)

Papers please. Oh, it seems your name is on our list. Please step out of the vehicle and come over here with me to be forcibly disappeared and processed at the ghost site.

Daniel March 31, 2009 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

LET ME SEE YOUR PAPERS !

JB March 31, 2009 9:10 pm (Pacific time)

Be carefull of what you ask for you might just get it, the Libs are in and your freedoms are on the way out. Oregon, where you can't buy firecrackers but you can have a doctor help kill yourself

Mike March 31, 2009 8:24 pm (Pacific time)

Ooh, hard to say how I would vote on this one. One side of me says that it could be a way to prevent lives lost to drunk drivers. Another side of me says that this is something that seems it would happen in a country shadowed by a dictatorship. It is unconstitutional because it invades our rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Interesting policies they try to come up with. For the most part it would be a big waste of money as well. The majority of drivers are sober. They might catch one ass who forgot about the checkpoint, but he would be the one out of 100 is my guess.

longhaired redneck March 31, 2009 8:22 pm (Pacific time)

When I moved to oregon in the 70's,Dad who was just a real cowboy, siad to me watch out you are moving into a police state he was right.

bill March 31, 2009 8:07 pm (Pacific time)

Now maybe you libirals will see that you elected only want complete control of you.

[Return to Top]