Illinois v. Lidster.

Last week I woke up an optimist. Then I read Illinois v. Lidster.

Were criminal law and civil rights not my passion, I would avoid reading the Court's criminal procedure cases. Reading these cases makes my blood pressure rises. I get angry. I become afraid. I ask myself, Is America is becoming a police state?

But before I read a Supreme Court decision, I - unlike the Rehnquist Court - read the constitutional amendment at issue. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [ ]." Let's look at this amendment in the context of Lidster.

Illinois cops set up a roadblock on a Saturday night at 12-midnight. The sole reason for this roadblock was to determine if anyone had seen an accident the week before. Lidster had to stop in traffic as he approached this roadblock. Lidster then had to stop his vehicle to talk to a cop.

Being stopped in traffic because of state action is a seizure. We know this because, but-for the roadblock, Lidster would have been home sooner. In other words, the roadblock slowed what the rate of traffic would otherwise have been. Being forced to stop in front of a police officer against your will is also a seizure. Is it reasonable to be stopped in traffic simply because the cops want to fish for information? It sure isn't reasonable to me. Nonetheless, the Court upheld these types of seizures.

The Supreme Court said that this roadblock was reasonable because "information-seeking highway stops are less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive. The stops are likely brief. [ ] And citizens will often react positively when police simply ask for their help as “responsible citizen[s]” to “give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement.” (Slip opinion at 4).

Those are very good policy reasons in support of the stop. If I witnessed a hit-and-run, I would likely do everything in my power to determine the killer. But this has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. We must presume that the Founders of this country had such policy discussions before they described the scope or our rights. But the Rehnquist Court believes that each case causes the 4th Amendment to come before it tablua rasa, in the new. Scalia, too, joined this oppinion, in contradiction to the principles articulated in his book.

What offends me most is the intellectual dishonesty. The Court says that police are free to solicit are help in apprehending criminals. This is true. However, I do not see how it thus follows that: "[I]t would seem anomalous were the law (1) ordinarily to allow
police freely to seek the voluntary cooperation of pedestri but (2) ordinarily to forbid police to seek similar voluntary cooperation from motorists." (Id. at 4-5). This, my friends, as you learned in your Jr. year of High School, is a fallacy. It is easy to reason our way around this Court-created fallacy. Namely, our answer would be, "The police may seek the help of pedestrians in solving crimes. But they may not violate the Constitution in doing so." The police could knock on the doors of local homes and businesses. The police could hand out flyers. There are several other ways to seek information that do not require a rights violation.

Since the Court has the finest legal minds working for them as law clerks, I can only draw the conclusion that Lidster's reasoning is based on a deliberate indifference or disregard for truth.

Another point that bothers me. A lot of people will say, "I would love to stop to help the police. These roadblocks don't bother me." My answer to you is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR OWN RIGHTS. I, little old me, hold the right to be free from these unlawful seizures. I do not want to surrender these rights. You should not be able to force me to do so. You may, however, amend the Constitution. Until you do so, please, start taking rights seriously.