Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional

And would like to state from the outset that Con’s criticisms during the debate are only critical of the ideas, and are not intended or intentionally or unintentionally to be attacks against my opponent, who by the comments made in the first round strikes me as a genuinely interested in debating the merits of the issues and demonstrates an obvious skill for how serious debate should take place. I wish my opponent the best, and just want to iterate that criticism in this debate are only criticism of ideas and not the people participating in the debate. Thanks again. Let’s proceed with the debate. So, the issue of whether these checkpoints are constitutional is settled. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. They have address this issue. They have said that police checkpoints are constitutional. [However, Pro I want to stick with the debate structure agreed to. Instead of getting recent opinions upholding the Constitutional of checkpoints, I will just provide a footnote for one of many decisions upholding these checkpoints as constitutional. But to give you a general idea of how (at least currently) plan to structure my argument I provided a recent case, along with a supplementary article published in The New York Times. [1] Here is the definition section: Checkpoints upheld by the Supreme Court included. Here are the facts of the issue decided before the Court. This is an abbreviated version: ***************************************************************** Facts of the Case In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. [2] ******************************************************************* To be more specific about the guideline used by the State of Michigan, they provided it in their CERTIORARI TO THE COURT [certiorari is the way the Supreme Court decides whether to take up a case or not, you can think of it as a petition]: “Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist's driver's license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer's observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately. ”[3] Here is the Purpose section: So, in MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, and this is the best way to describe the checkpoint in question [this comes from the Summary Report before the decision and the underlined portions are mine]: State has a "grave and legitimate" interest in curbing drunken driving; that sobriety checkpoint programs are generally ineffective and, therefore, do not significantly further that interest; and that, while the checkpoints' objective intrusion on individual liberties is slight, their "subjective intrusion" is substantial. [4] [1] Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990). . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... (accessed March 25, 2015). I understand most people don’t have enough time to read a Supreme Court majority opinion, so to help voters and my opponent validate my evidence I will provide a shorter The New York Times article. “Excerpts From Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints,” The New York Times. June 15, 1990. . http://www.nytimes.com... (accessed March 25, 2015) [2] . http://www.oyez.org... [3] 496 U. S. 444 (1990) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE ET AL. v. SITZ ET AL. No. 88-1897. Supreme Court of United States. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN . https://scholar.google.com...+(1990)&hl=en&as_sdt=4000006&as_vis=1 (Accessed March 26, 2015) [4] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...