OLYMPIA — Rep. Al O’Brien has a good reason to want roadside checkpoints used to nab drunken drivers.
His brother was killed by one 40 years ago.
Yet the Mountlake Terrace Democrat and former Seattle cop is opposing legislation pushed by Gov. Chris Gregoire to legalize them.
“Rather than doing them we ought to put more officers on the road to catch those driving under the influence,” he said.
O’Brien is not alone in his thinking.
A number of lawmakers are dead-set against checkpoints even though many also want longer prison sentences for those convicted of driving drunk.
These legislators are concerned it’s not legal and it is excessive government intrusion on individual liberties.
“I will not be voting for it,” said Rep. Mark Ericks, D-Bothell, a former Bothell police chief. “I am as opposed to DUI checkpoints as I am to President Bush listening to our private conversations.”
Opposition crosses ideological lines; the very liberal, such as Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, and the very conservative, such as Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, view it as a bad idea.
Stevens called it “big government” and said “it is unconstitutional.”
Kline, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “I have no problem if there were — and that is a big if — a constitutional way to do it. I would be happy to do it. I remain to be convinced.”
Gregoire unveiled the idea last week in Lynnwood. Details are spelled out in House Bill 2771, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor.
There’s been an underwhelming reaction.
When Gregoire mentioned it in her State of the State address Tuesday, it landed with a thud. Not a single lawmaker applauded.
House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, have given the bill lukewarm reviews, signaling little support for the plan.
“I have my own doubts about it,” Chopp said Thursday
Worries are rooted in a 1988 state Supreme Court decision that said it is unconstitutional for drivers to be routinely stopped without suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual is doing something wrong.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has approved sobriety checkpoints, Washington has stronger privacy protections against suspicionless search-and-seizure, ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said.
Today, 39 states deploy roadblocks.
Gregoire’s proposal would require law enforcement to get a warrant from the Superior Court by showing the judge a plan for a specific location and time period as well as demonstrate it would be in an area known for frequent alcohol and drug-related collisions.
The bill would require the judge to approve the warrant if the plan “advances the jurisdiction’s interest in reducing impaired driving, taking into account potential arrests under the program and the program’s deterrent effect.”
The bill says all vehicles except for emergency vehicles would have to stop at each checkpoint. A person who failed to stop could be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor. That could carry a maximum penalty of a year in jail and $5,000 fine.
The plan calls for advance notice to the public and a report back to the court on how the checkpoint project worked.
Lantz acknowledged the concern of legislators and civil libertarians and said she expects a court challenge if the measure passes.
Lantz, who is a lawyer, said she wouldn’t have supported the bill if she didn’t think it could survive a legal test. She compared the intrusion of police roadblocks to the mandatory security checks that airplane passengers must endure.
“It is not a fishing expedition,” Lantz said. “We don’t want it to be a fishing expedition, because it’ll get thrown out in a nanosecond.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Reporter Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623 or jcornfield@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
