Searching Muslims vs. DUI Checkpoints: Your Preference

About a year & 1/2 ago, I created a poll that asked members here to chime in on a hot topic at the time. In it, 61% of participants believe searching muslims (strictly due to preference in religious faith) is an acceptable practice that should be administered, while only 25% felt it was totally unacceptable, 8% on the fence, and 4% that didn't know.

Recently, this thread has revealed quite a good number of members on the other side of the argument... with claims of unconstitutional violations of individual rights and civil liberties with regard to randomized DUI checkpoints (breathalyzer screening).

So what's the difference?

Do you agree with one vs. the other? Are both acceptable forms of preemptive protection? Would both (if administered) be grand violations of our person/property?

Feel free to leave your reasons for "why" you believe what you do.

 

Easiest vote I've done for this. Both infringe on the rights of the people. It's so obvious I don't know how people can't see it.

 

So, what do you think caused the obvious disparity with the two threads I mentioned?

 

If their religion is the only factor under consideration, then it is obviously unacceptable, both Constitutionally speaking and practically speaking.

 

Most posters here are non-Muslim drivers and human beings are fundamentally selfish creatures.

And for what it's worth, I don't consider the two situations are being directly comparable. Simply being a Muslim is entirely different to driving on the public roads. Driving is fundamentally dangerous and so the legitimate methods taken to minimise the risk will be entirely different. Driving is also not a fundamental human right.

(please note that anyone stating that simply being a Muslim is also fundamentally dangerous will be ignored so don't waste your time)

 

Driving being a privilege doesn't really matter, as probable cause (valid suspicion of driving while under the influence) is required to administer alcohol screening devices, just as valid suspicion should be present in order to search a person that identifies him/herself as muslim. I agree with you regarding "legitimate methods taken to minimize risk", but DUI checkpoints aren't legitimate.

 

My main point is that it simply isn't legitimate to compare being a Muslim with driving on the public highway.

The fact driving is a privilege is relevant and that's it's a potentially deadly privilege makes it even more so. Regardless of what the actual laws are at the moment, there is a logical different to the level of restriction applied to a fundamental right than to a privilege. Otherwise, the requirement to have a driving licence or indeed the law against drunk driving (regardless of how it is enforced) wouldn't be acceptable either.

That is a matter of opinion. I consider having a method to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads with limited impact on other drivers but choosing not to use it isn't legitimate. In fact, I'd argue it's criminal.

 

With regard to civil liberties, sure it is.

This isn't a matter of "choosing not to do it" or opinion. It's a matter of legality. The law says probable cause is necessary to administer alcohol screening methods, just as probable cause is necessary to search/seize an individual and/or their property... therefore (with both driving and being a muslim) individuals have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search/seizure unless probable cause exists.

 

Religion is a thought, driving is an act. It's impossible to stop holding your beliefs while it is perfectly possible not to drive. An individual's religious beliefs (alone) doesn't affect other people, and individual driving does (potentially very seriously). I'm not sure you could come up with two things that are any more different.

Ignoring the legalities for a moment, ensuring an individual is driving safely makes conceptual sense. Ensuring an individual is being religious safely simply doesn't.

I know. I'm suggesting the law should be changed (assuming you're interpretation of it as it stands is correct). With regards to DUI checks (and driving in general), I don't believe the current balance between individual freedom and public safety is correct.

 

But that does not stop people from questioning Muslims at airports or borders either. Religion MAY be a thought to those who practice it, but it sure DRIVES some other people overboard. It's just that an individual driving may have a direct affect, but a religious person also has an indirect affect; both sharing a similar outcome.

 

You'd have to do away with the Constitutional amendment then... not just some state law.

 

So be it, though I suspect it'd be more a case of changing than simply doing away with.

I'm not saying it would be easy or without other issues but I don't hold with the argument that "It's against the consitution" automatically means it's wrong.

 

I'd be alright if this included mandatory searches of Conservatives.

 

EPV,

While the sentiments behind your questions might be laudable, they are posed in such a way as to elicit a sought for response.


The two events you are questioning, DUI stops and searching Muslims are false dichotomies. You are presenting responders with only two choices which, in turn allow only two opitions; they are either right or wrong. You are ignoring the middle ground that says they may sometimes be right and sometimes wrong.

If a DUI stop is truly random, or if everyone passing by a certain point is stopped, the DUI stop is not an infringement on personal liberties. If, however, the random DUI stop is not truly random but, instead targets only black drivers, or only younger drivers for example, it is then an infringement.

The same with searching Muslims. For beginners, unless a person self identifies as a Muslim, you, as an outsider have no way of knowing whether that person is actually a Muslim or not. There is no 'mark of Cain' that says to the universer, "I am a Muslim". If you are saying that everyone who wears a particular mode of dress, or everyone who looks middle eastern should be searched, that is an obvious action in violation of their civil liberties. If, on the other hand, you say, all people fitting a particular profile by acting in a particular manner are to be searched, that is not an infringement on anyone's civil liberties.

Profiling, is not of itself an infringement on civil liberties as has been shown by such actions as curfews for teenagers, or lady's nights at taverns. Not all teenagers will get into trouble if teens are allowed to roam the streets into the wee hours of the morning but the expectation that teens will be more likely to get into trouble during these hours is high enough that curfews have been legally upheld. It is this same reasoning of an increased liklihood of a particular behavior that makes setting up DUI checkpoints in the vicinity of taverns or nightclubs legal, or the heightened scrutiny of people acting in certain manners or dressing in certain ways legal.

The act of living in a society carries with it the expectation that there will be no such thing as complete and total freedom.

 

Both are obviously violations of the Fourth Amendment.

 

Agreed.

Without a warrant, both are illegitimate.

 

Incorrect, as creating some state law to take away guns for everyone would be an infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. Randomized screening absent probable cause is a direct violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution, which states we are to be secure from unreasonable searches of person, property, houses & effects unless probable cause exists... therefore, searching muslims (without probable cause) and screening drivers (without probable cause) are alike in that they are both violations of the same Amendment.

 

or reasonable suspicion... otherwise, you're correct.

 

Reasonable suspicion doesn't cut it. In order for the police to legally search, they have to have consent by the owner, a warrant, or have to actually see/hear something illegal going on.

 

Which falls in line with reasonable suspicion. In some states it is illegal to have an open container while operating a motor vehicle, therefore the act serves as reasonable suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol. A vibrating bag is valid reasonable suspicion to increase scrunity/screening measures for airline passengers.

 

What about things like random safety inspections of places like restaurants, hospitals or building sites, searching or scanning everyone entering a public building or sporting events for weapons or searching randomly selected vehicles entering the country for contraband?

 

That is required (and agreed to) when you establish a business just as safety inspections are required for the motor vehicles you operate. However, motorists don't agree to "zero probable cause" DUI screening when they obtain a license. They agree to it when reasonable suspicion exists. Also, muslims don't agree to scrutiny based off of faith when they buy airline tickets.

Resource/Asset protection is a practice not protected by the 4th Amendment, as that text protects individuals from unreasonable search/seizure... meaning "for no apparent reason" or "discriminatory in nature".

 

Morally speaking though, it's all restrictions to personal freedom. It seems that you're arguing on the basis of a technicality, which would imply that if there were an explicit agreement written in to the driving licence conditions, these kind of stops would be acceptable to you. If not, where is the logical difference between the restrictions you accept and the one you don’t?

Doesn't that just boil down to the interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? Personally speaking, I don't consider occasional random DUI checkpoints an unreasonable measure to combat drink driving, certainly in areas where it is identified as a particular problem.

 

Mainly because there's a bigoted group out there who let themselves be known.

 

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. My stance has been about legality for a long time now.

Unreasonable would describe instances where probable cause is absent, or a valid warrant isn't present. The 4th Amendment is very specific about how it's interpreted.