House debates police roadblocks

Pawtucket Times | March 30, 2005
By Jim Baron

PROVIDENCE -- A slew of bills concerning drunk driving, refusing Breathalyzer tests and failing to wear seat belts were taken out for a spin by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Cranston Rep. Charlene Lima told the panel "it smacks of a police state" to abridge the rights of innocent drivers by stopping them without probable cause at a drunk driving checkpoint and making them prove they are innocent of a crime.

The R.I. Supreme Court has ruled such roadblocks unconstitutional, although they are used in more than 35 other states. The U.S. Supreme Court has found them to be constitutional, but in 1989 the R.I. court said the state constitution sets the bar higher.

Lima introduced legislation to forbid such roadblocks earlier this year after Attorney General Patrick Lynch asked Gov. Donald Carcieri to seek an advisory opinion from the high court as to whether they still consider the tactic constitutionally questionable.

Col. Stephen Pare, commander of the R.I. State Police, testified in favor of the checkpoints calling them "an educational tool" to assist law enforcement in battling drunk driving.

"Those who are law-abiding shouldn’t be afraid of the roadblocks," Pare told the committee, noting that in most cases the length of time a driver is detained is less than for a traffic light. "After a quick interaction, they are allowed to proceed."

Providence Rep. Edith Ajello, a committee member, told Pare she believed the 6-10 officers used to conduct a roadblock could be of more use patrolling the streets looking for people driving erratically or stumbling to their cars after leaving a bar.

Pare told the committee that for every study that finds roadblocks to be an effective law enforcement tool, there is another that says they are not effective.

George Mason, testifying for the attorney general’s office, called the roadblocks "one leg of the stool" that includes increased penalties for refusing sobriety tests and subpoenaing blood evidence, which law enforcement can use to address the serious problem of drunk driving.

Steven Brown, director of the R.I. affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said roadblocks turn on its head one of the tenets of the American justice system: that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

"This detains hundreds or thousands of people" to see whether one may be guilty.

He pointed to a year-long experiment in Tennessee where police conducted 900 checkpoints, stopped 145,000 cars, but made only 773 drunk driving arrests. That means there was less than one arrest per roadblock and that nearly 145,000 people were stopped unnecessarily.

West Warwick Police Chief Peter Brousseau, head of the R.I. Police Chiefs Association, said he believes roadblocks are a better tactic than roving patrols because of the deterrent factor.

The committee also heard testimony on three similar but separate bills that would crack down on drivers who refuse a chemical test after being stopped for suspected drunk driving.

Pawtucket Rep. J. Patrick O’Neill testified for his bill, which would increase the license suspension for the first offense for refusing a test to six months to a year. The current penalty is three to six months, the same for those found guilty of drunk driving.

Currently, O’Neill said, drivers routinely refuse the test because the license suspension is the same length, but a Breathalyzer refusal does not give someone a criminal record.

O’Neill’s bill would make the third refusal in five years a misdemeanor, giving the offender a criminal record.

A bill introduced for the attorney general’s office by Rep. Peter Ginaitt would make the license suspension nine months for the first offense and would require community restitution for second and third offenses.

A bill submitted on behalf of Gov. Donald Carcieri by Rep. Bruce Long would make a Breathalyzer refusal a criminal offense on the second charge.

Another bill introduced for Carcieri would make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense.

Currently, police can only ticket someone for not wearing a seat belt if they are pulled over for some other reason. Carcieri’s bill, sponsored by Rep. Susan Story, would allow police to stop a car if they see the driver or passengers not wearing seat belts.

The measure was opposed by those who feel it could facilitate racial profiling, giving police another reason to stop cars at will "Get language in there to protect us from being harassed," Onna Moniz John told the panel. "It is one more reason to stop us. This is a real issue."

Rep. Joseph Moran, a representative and Central Falls police chief, noted there are "six pages of violations" for which police can stop people, "I don’t think seat belts are going to be the main one."

A primary seat belt law, the ACLU’s Brown said, "gives police

enormous discretion" in deciding whom they are going to pull over.

"It is racial minorities that bear the brunt of it."

Brown called for language that would prohibit police from using a

seatbelt violation as a pretext to pull someone over.

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Flaherty shot back, "how do

you enforce that law?" He told Brown that solution would be

unworkable.

The committee took no votes on any of the bills on Tuesday.

Enter recipient's e-mail:

<< HOME