Checkpoints violate civil rights

On Sunday, Nov. 9, my family and I encountered a vehicle inspection

stop on Fairview Avenue conducted by the Costa Mesa Police

Department. A sign had been placed at the San Diego Freeway overpass

telling motorists that they would need to show their driver’s

licenses and/or vehicle registration forms for their cars. I was

alarmed by this action. The stopping of vehicles to search for a

driver’s license or vehicle registration form without probable cause

seems to be a violation of our civil rights, particularly those

rights under the 4th Amendment.

I called the Costa Mesa Police Department to get an explanation.

An Officer Wadkins returned my call and told me that the police

department had implemented this action over two years ago and that

they had conducted inspections on Victoria Avenue on three previous

occasions.

I asked Wadkins to explain the justification the police were using

for such inspections. He cited several court cases, but particularly

referenced Michigan vs. Stitz, 1990, where the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that while this type of action was a search and seizure, it was

not invasive enough to violate the 4th Amendment. Wadkins also

offered that the police only stopped every 10th or 15th car,

depending on traffic flow, to circumvent any discriminatory practice.

Those stopped who did not have a valid driver’s license or vehicle

registration form had their cars impounded and were given a citation.

While I understand the ostensible reason for this action, I must

object to it as acceptable police practice and public policy. It is

inherently discriminatory and abusive. Case in point is the placement

of the inspection points. The first three inspection points were on

Victoria Avenue, which is a gateway to Costa Mesa’s Westside, a

predominantly Latino neighborhood. The most recent inspection point

was on Fairview on a Sunday, which is a main artery to the Orange

Coast College swap meet. Many Latinos patronize this swap meet. Even

though the inspection stops were standardized to stop every 10th or

15th car, by its design, it targeted primarily Latinos.

That, in and of itself, is cause for concern. But the greater

concern is the slippery slope this action embarks upon. In my

opinion, the action is invasive because there is no probable cause.

While the courts may have sided with the police for the moment,

ultimately, this must be viewed as indefensible because of its

potential for abuse. The court, as well as we citizens, must

recognize the razor thin line between these inspections and the more

invasive act of unlawful search and seizure. Indeed, the emotional

state we are in, as a result of Sept. 11, has manifested in

irrational fear and unreasonable responses (read Patriot Act). Now,

local governments are taking advantage of this emotional environment.

This begs the question: What other objectives are the police trying

to accomplish? And who or what may be targeted next?

This is bad public policy. It will lead to abuse, and ultimately,

it will lead to a further impingement of our civil liberties. To

paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: One who exchanges civil liberties for

security deserves neither.

HOWARD NATHANSON

Costa Mesa