THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS

TO what lengths may police go -- reasonably -- to crack down on criminals?
That is the thorny question raised by several recent, controversial actions
taken (or contemplated) by keepers of the peace in several municipalities
throughout the country.

In Buena Park, for instance, the local constabulary set up a checkpoint to
identify individuals driving with invalid licenses. Officers stopped every
fifth car during the first day of the checkpoint. They found 20 motorists
driving with suspended or revoked licenses, or no license whatsoever. They
wrote 150 citations.

This is one case where yours truly actually agrees with the American Civil
Liberties Union. Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU's Los
Angeles office, says that Buena Park cops were violating motorists' rights
because officers "have to have a reason for stopping someone like that."

Buena Park police disagree. "If we were stopping every car, then we might
run into problems," said Sgt. Joe Englehardt. "We are operating under the
same laws that you run into with drunk-driving checkpoints."

But it is questionable whether courts will agree.

Indeed, in 1987, the state Supreme Court upheld the legality of drunken
driver checkpoints, declaring, in its wisdom, that the public interest in
getting drunken drivers off the road outweighed the privacy rights of
motorists.

But there is no comparison between drunken drivers and drivers with invalid
licenses. Drunken drivers (most of whom happen to have valid licenses) pose
a clear and present danger to public safety, accounting for nearly 40
percent of annual traffic fatalities. Invalidly licensed drivers, however
malfeasant, don't even remotely pose a similar threat.

The question then is this: Is it reasonable for Buena Park police, or any
other police force, to abrogate the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding
motorists to identify those who are driving not drunk, but without a proper
license?

I think not.

For similar reasons, the civil libertarian in me also has qualms about a
proposal by New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir that the Big
Apple's finest take a DNA sample from every person arrested in the five
boroughs.

As for the criminal suspects who are proven innocent, the New York police
commissioner assures that their DNA samples would be destroyed.

But the best way to protect the rights of the innocent (or the acquitted) is
to reserve DNA testing and profiling to those who actually have been
convicted of crimes, not those who are merely arrested (more than half of
whom are never actually convicted).

Then there's the campaign being waged by local police in three Northern
California cities -- Palo Alto, Menlo Park and San Pablo. The cops in these
cities have compiled lists of "problem drinkers and common drunkards,"
including their mug shots. They have asked local merchants to "volunteer"
not to sell them alcohol.

San Pablo Police Chief Douglas Krathwohl said his city's program was started
this past fall in response to problems caused by a band of drunkards who
patronized the same local liquor stores, using their monthly welfare and
disability checks to buy alcohol.

But unless these individuals are ex-cons who've been ordered to stay away
from liquor stores as terms of their probation, then it is hard to see how
police can post the names and faces of these individuals, whether in local
liquor stores, post offices or anywhere else.

EVEN problem drinkers and common drunkards have privacy rights.

What we are observing in Buena Park, in New York City, and in Palo Alto,
Menlo Park and San Pablo is the ongoing clash between law enforcement and
civil liberties. Police in these municipalities are counting on the fact
that most law-abiding citizens have little empathy for unlicensed drivers,
criminal suspects or public drunkards.

The authorities believe that few people will be troubled if police seize the
vehicles of these scofflaws for 30 days, take DNA samples from these
miscreants, or circulate the mug shots of these reprobates to merchants
advising them not to sell them alcohol.

But these kinds of measures, ostensibly aimed at enforcing law and order,
nonetheless amount to an assault upon privacy rights.

And one need not be soft on crime to recognize that when the government is
able to chip away at any of our rights (like privacy) under whatever
seemingly reasonable pretext (like cracking down on crime), it is not long
before it finds other seemingly reasonable pretexts to further erode those
rights until those cherished rights no longer exist for all practical
purposes.