POLICE INTRUSIONS

Buena Park police, who have begun to randomly stop cars in search of
unlicensed drivers, say that public safety concerns justify the approach.
They say these checks fall into the same category as drunken driving
checkpoints, which the state and federal courts have found acceptable.

The courts eventually will decide whether the drivers license checkpoints
are a valid extension of the DUI checkpoints, but we believe the concept
violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Police should have "probable cause" - reason to believe of
specific illegal activity - before being able to stop and search a driver.

Checkpoint supporters defend the jettisoning of these legal protections,
citing overarching public safety concerns. Drunken drivers, for instance,
imperil the safety of others, and that's true enough.

But the slope keeps getting more slippery. The random license stops were
justified by the fact that unlicensed drivers cause 35 percent of all fatal
accidents in California.

What other safety concern might be next? Surely, drivers in cars with bald
tires are causing dangers.

The checkpoints, too, become a pretext for wider searches. Of the 150
citations issued at the Buena Park checkpoint on Wednesday, one-third were
for registration violations, with others for broken windshields,
outstanding warrants and the like. Buena Park Police spokesman Sgt. Ron
Natale told us that police are 'not going to turn a blind eye to obvious
violations," and that the district attorney's office gave the OK for such
searches.

Two court decisions have bearing on this matter. In 1987 the California
Supreme Court said drunken driving checkpoints are constitutional. In 1990
the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar verdict.

"Unfortunately, the (Orange County) D.A. is correct that these kinds of
searches have been deemed by the Supreme Court to pass muster by the
Constitution, but I strongly disagree," Tim Lynch told us; he's the
associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional
Studies in Washington, D.C. He said that although the U.S. Supreme Court
case appears to open the door to checkpoints for a wide range of reasons,
he believes such rulings weaken the Constitution's protections against
unreasonable government searches and seizures.

Police cannot simply pull over any driver, or search anyone's home or
person, without having probable cause that they committed an illegal act.
But when the courts allow random checkpoints, they are saying that if
everyone's "constitutional rights are violated, then it's not a problem,"
Mr. Lynch explained.

Buena Park police noted their random checks succeeded, considering the
large number of citations they issued at the checkpoint. But "if police had
the power to search everyone's home, they would have impressive statistics
of violations," Mr. Lynch countered. "It's really an issue of limiting
police power .. not a question of effective law enforcement. If the Bill of
Rights was repealed tomorrow it would make law enforcement easier."

The foundation of a free society rests in large part on its ability to
prevent unauthorized searches and seizures by the authorities. The Buena
Park Police Department and even the courts may not grasp that fact at the
moment, but we suspect that most Americans still do.