URGENT ACTION NEEDED: SB298
Debra Medina
To:
May 5, 2009
Dear Fellow Texan,
I’m writing today to call your attention to SB 298 which has passed the Senate 20-11 and is scheduled for a public hearing before the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence tomorrow, May 6.
PLEASE CONTACT HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TODAY:
Chair: Rep. Pete Gallego, District: 74, (512) 463-0566, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Vice Chair: Rep. Wayne Christian, District: 9, (512) 463-0556, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Allen Fletcher, District: 130, (512) 463-0661, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Terri Hodge, District: 100, (512) 463-0586, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Carol Kent, District: 102, (512) 463-0454, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Robert Miklos, District: 101, (512) 463-0464, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Joseph E. Moody, District: 78, (512) 463-0728, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Paula Pierson, District: 93, (512) 463-0562, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Debbie Riddle, District: 150, (512) 463-0572, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Allen Vaught, District: 107 (co-author of House companion bill HB 169), (512) 463-0244, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Rep. Hubert Vo, District: 149, (512) 463-0568, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
I urge opposition to SB 298 as a violation of the 4th amendment right to unreasonable searches and seizures. SB 298 enables law enforcement agencies in Texas to set up and operate sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of identifying drunk drivers. There are more effective and less invasive means of combating alcohol-related driving accidents.
Perhaps in an attempt to admit that this bill is bad policy, it has been amended to apply only to large population centers, (counties with a population in excess of 250,000). Further, it requires that vehicle selection be “non-arbitrary” and that operator intrusion be minimal (a rationalization, perhaps, that a “little” violation of individual liberty is o.k.). Recall Franklin’s admonition, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Here is a synopsis of the bill from John Bush and the folks at TAG:
Sobriety checkpoints violate our unalienable right against unreasonable seizures
The United States Supreme Court decision (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Stitz) states that while checkpoint stops constitute a 4th Amendment “seizure,” the seizure is not unreasonable because the “subjective intrusion” to motorists is minor in light of the alleged effectiveness of checkpoints in reducing drunk driving.1 We reject this lackadaisical interpretation of the constitution and hold that an individual’s right to be left alone shall not be violated as a means of attempting to reduce drunk driving.
Sobriety checkpoints have been conducted in other states in conjunction with active duty military
On December 12, 2008 the California Highway Patrol, in conjunction with the San Bernardino Sheriffs Dept and USMC military police, conducted a sobriety checkpoint.2 This act was in direct violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which bars military from engaging in civilian police activity. By authorizing sobriety checkpoints in the state of Texas we are opening the door for non-state agencies such as the Department of Defense and/or the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to include themselves in the execution of our State checkpoints.
There are more effective ways to combat alcohol related fatalities
According to a NHTSA study, there were 411 fewer alcohol related deaths in 2004 than in 2003. It is worth noting that of the 411 fewer deaths, 394 of them were in the 11 states that did not operate checkpoints.3 These states are better able to utilize their resources and law enforcement personnel in conducting more effective measures such as saturation patrols. A 2003 FBI Law Enforcement memo comparing sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols stated that "Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders."4
1 Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
2 "CHP TO CONDUCT SOBRIETY/DRIVER LICENSE CHECKPOINT." Memo to California Highway Patrol, CHP News, California. December, 10 2008
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/chp01.png
3 "Alcohol-Related Fatalities in 2004." Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, National Highway and Traffic Administration. August, 2005.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809904.PDF
4 Greene, Jeffrey W. "Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. January 2003 Volume 72 Number 1
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/jan2003/jan03leb.htm
Toward Liberty,
Debra Medina
State Coordinator - Texas
Campaign for Liberty