Seatbelts, Roadblocks, and Probable Cause

April 4, 2004 -- In Sec. 10 of the Constitution of South Carolina it clearly states:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

It does not allow for exceptions.  It does not say that we should weigh the state’s interest in eradicating a particular social ill against the rights of the people to remain free from police invasions that are made without probable cause. It does not imply that exercising our right to travel is a voluntary waiver of our right to privacy, nor does it suggest that our personal vehicles (cars, motorcycles, boats, etc.) are somehow unrelated to our right to remain secure in our houses, papers, and effects.  Probable cause means something more than suspicion, and unreasonable should not be left to the courts to define.  Judges have become extensions of the state, rather than impartial defenders of our state’s constitution. 

There are no shortages of court rulings, including rulings from the United States Supreme Court, that demonstrate that most judges are more inclined to rule in favor of the state’s interest rather than the people’s freedom.  Supporters of less liberty in the name of public safety applaud the judges and lawmakers who rise above the obstacles that the Constitution of South Carolina creates.  If they cannot rise above it, they find a way around it.  But it remains the same.  No matter how hard those who oppose Sec. 10 try to ignore or belittle it, it still reads the same. 

There is no resolution to Sec. 10 other than an amendment.  Either we want this section in the constitution, or we do not.  But to continue to allow its desecration in the name of public safety is an abomination. 

It is curious to me that there is currently a debate raging over a primary seatbelt law in South Carolina while we allow police to set up roadblocks to detect crime in our state.  How is it that the decision to wear a seatbelt is a matter of liberty, but the right to travel on a public roadway, free from roadside interrogations, isn’t.  Incidentally, ten states currently do not allow the use of police roadblocks to detect wrongdoing.  They recognize the heightened protects guaranteed by their state’s constitution.  What’s the point in having a state constitution if not for creating protections that surpass those expressed in the Constitution of the United States? 

Regardless of the benefits that may be recognized by wearing seatbelts, the bill that is being debated on our senate floor should be defeated simply because the police will use roadblocks to enforce the law, if enacted.  The people of South Carolina shouldn’t expect any relief from our Supreme Court either.  Out of the fifty states that comprise our great union, it is only South Carolina that allows police roadblocks without the benefit of its highest court’s ruling.  All guidance on roadblocks comes from the United States Supreme Court ruling, Michigan v. Sitz, 486 U.S. 444 (1990).  Alaska has not had its Supreme Court rule on roadblocks either, but they don’t have a need simply because their lawmakers prohibit the use roadblocks in their state.