Random Unlawful Searches and Seizures on the Roadways: Unconstitutional but Nobody Seems to Care

At the end of May police officers in Belmont County, Ohio set up the county's first ever "drug interdiction" on the oft-traveled I-70. Equipped with drug dogs and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional protections of privacy afforded to individuals against such invasions, officers stopped motorists and proceeded to search cars for drugs.

This might prompt some people to argue that this type of search and seizure is warranted the same protections that the law seems to have afforded DUI checkpoints. Unfortunately, there have been no public objections to this practice (it was actually greeted at worst with confusion and at best with a sense of security), but for the sake of a hypothetical intelligent argument I will respond with the following: this is simply not the case according to the Supreme Court. And while the opinion of the highest court of the land may not matter to the Belmont County police force, the citizens who will be impacted by these measures- whether by the inconvenience of traffic delays or confiscation of property- should certainly take note.

In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court argued that unlike DUI checkpoints aimed at removing imminent threats from the road, police do not have the authority to search and/or seize drugs without a probable cause and a warrant to do so. They concluded that such "drug interdictions" are, in fact, unconstitutional. The intent here is crucial- if you are pulled over at a DUI checkpoint and a cop smells marijuana, that is indeed probable cause and warrants a search of your person. However, so long as the intent is to confiscate drugs, as was clearly the intent in Ohio, a search and seizure is, to quote the constitution "unlawful." This has several implications for those who wish to pursue them.

First, know your rights. Regardless of whether you have anything to hide or not, the fact remains that the police are literally not allowed to search you, your car, or any extension thereof under the circumstances of a random drug stop. Although the police oftentimes have a funny way of forgetting to remind citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights, we are entitled to them until the point that we tacitly waive them by consenting to a search.

Second, this practice will not and cannot change until somebody refuses to waive their rights and challenges the police on this issue. In the United States we have what is known as an adversarial system, meaning that it does not matter how unconstitutional an action is if an individual never has the standing to protest it in court. For example, the fact that I am a rights-obsessed individual who is bothered by these violations of our fundamental individual rights is not enough to provide me with standing to sue in a court of law. Until I am fortunate enough to be stopped by one of these officers myself, I am entitled to try this case in the court of public opinion alone.