SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS, DRUG TESTS PRESUME GUILT

One tenet of the American criminal justice system everybody should know is
that people are innocent until proven guilty. That's why two recent rulings
from the Indiana Supreme Court are disturbing. The high court has ruled
that it is permissible for police to operate sobriety checkpoints and for
school districts to randomly test students for illegal drugs. These rulings
came after citizens challenged the actions and those challenges were upheld
by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which is a step below the Supreme Court.

When first considering them, these police actions seem like good ones.
People are fed up with their family, friends and neighbors dying at the
hands of drunk drivers. Many say that anything we can do to stop drunk
driving is a good move and if the roadblocks save "just one person," then
it's a good law enforcement tool.

Parents and society are also reasonably worried about their teens, who seem
to be using drugs at record rates. Manufactured drugs with questionable
contents, such as methamphetamine and crack, are finding their way into
more and more of our schools. The urine screening could be another tool for
parents and administrators to catch drug use before it becomes a serious
problem for a student.

People also justify random drug testing and the roadblocks by saying, "If
you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." But we
do have something to worry about. These laws illustrate a systematic
chipping away of our rights as individuals. We are losing our right to move
about freely in our cities and keep the chemical content of our bodies to
ourselves.

A person who is stopped at a roadblock is put in the position of proving
himself innocent. He is required to stop and submit to an examination even
though no police officer has observed weaving, erratic driving or any other
indication that he is intoxicated. This reeks of a Gestapo government where
citizens must stop at periodic checkpoints and "produce your papers."

For high school students, they will be told "produce your urine" if they
wish to drive to school or participate in extracurricular activities. Any
student who is offended by this instruction and refuses to take the test is
assumed guilty and punished by losing privileges. The student must prove he
or she is innocent of drug use by taking the test when asked, even when the
school officials have no reason to believe the student is using drugs.

No one wants drunk drivers on the roads or kids using cocaine, and
officials who are struggling to solve these problems are to be commended.
The police and other officials have an unenviable task of curbing criminal
activity without stepping on the liberties of the innocent and the rights
of the accused. Violations of defendants' rights are not merely
technicalities that get a case dismissed; they are the rules, set on
parchment more than 200 years ago, that govern how our government must
treat us. Officials must follow the rules and work within the system of
checks and balances in American government. Right now, the government needs
to be checked.

Hopefully, the plaintiffs will take these cases to the next rung - the
federal court of appeals. When we are talking about the gradual erosion of
our valued rights to privacy and free passage, all avenues of debate should
be exhausted before we take anyone's word as the final one.