Court hits roadblocks to freedom

     The United States has always been talked about as the land of the free. That particular phrase is even in our national anthem.

     Why is it then that the Supreme Court had to make a ruling on an Indianapolis program that allowed the police to stop drivers and search their cars for illegal drugs?

     Thank goodness, the Supreme Court decided such a practice could be abused and violate the Fourth Amendment. If the court had not been actually protecting the citizen’s interests for a change, then every other city in the United States could have instituted the same plan.

     The program involved roadblocks where the police would sift through every car at that particular intersection, check the driver’s license and then walk a drug-sniffing dog around the car in an effort to find illegal drugs. The Indianapolis police obviously think that the over 100 arrests show how successful the program is. That is until the facts come out.

     More than 1,100 cars were stopped at these roadblocks, and of the over 100 tickets written, only half were for drug offenses.

     The Indianapolis police department doesn’t want to realize that they also illegally searched over a thousand people. And, of course, many other cities were waiting to see if Indianapolis could get away with these searches so they could start their own programs.

     One of the more frightening aspects of this Supreme Court ruling is that it was a 6-3 decision. That means three justices thought it was perfectly reasonable to search everyone in the vain attempt to possibly find a few guilty people.

     One of the dissenters was Clarence Thomas, who apparently doesn’t want people searching through his past actions, but doesn’t mind the police searching innocent people’s cars at an illegal roadblock.

     Thomas was embroiled in the infamous Anita Hill incident. This is an example of a man who had little respect for the law, but is now dictating it for the rest of us.

     It’s good that there are people on the Supreme Court like Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who have some idea of what freedom is.

     While our freedoms were protected this time, keep in mind that this does not stop drunken-driving checkpoints. Those will still be allowed because of the immediate threat to life and limb that drunken drivers cause. The drunken-driving and drug paranoia that has swept the nation has stripped the country of many of its freedoms in recent years.

     This legislation based on fear is a dangerous pattern because those who would sacrifice personal freedoms for safety will get, and usually receive, neither.

     The framers of the constitution must be rolling in their graves when they see how close to a police state we have become.

     Perhaps the younger generation will eventually get riled up enough to vote, make their voice heard and put an end to the current state the country is in. Until then, though, things will stay the same.