Discussion Question-Law class - Essay Example

LAW: DISCUSSION QUESTION Legal Concepts and Analytical Thinking ISSUE The local police have put up traffic check points in twoof the main streets that enter a neighborhood in Washington DC. The crime rate in this neighbourhood is so high. This has been as a result of a recent rise in violence levels in the area. The traffic checkpoints have been up for close to a week now. Motorists are asked for their licenses and registrations and asked what their business in the neighborhood is. Police officers ask to inspect the cars, but, if occupants decline the request; they do not search the cars; neither do they seek warrants to search cars.

The motorists whose papers are in order are allowed entry into the neighborhood. Nonetheless, no pedestrians are stopped for frisking.POSTINGThe United States Supreme Court in its responsibility, has failed to provide the guidance necessary to ensure that law enforcing officials, and local authorities, refrain from putting up checkpoints in high crime rate areas. These check points are illegal because they invade people’s privacy that is protected by the fourth amendment of the constitution.

The failure of the appellate court has led to the continuation of this practice. Soon enough, it may become a routine in most U.S cities. However, with proper guidance, this can be stopped and the checkpoints will be illegal.In the case, Illinois V Lidster; the Supreme Court was facing a dilemma once again regarding check points. However, this time around authorities were not stopping vehicles in an attempt to curb crime rates but were doing so to interrogate motorists about a driver who had caused an accident (hit-and-run driver) and was at large.

Joseph Pytel was the victim. He had been hit by a car when he was riding his bike. The driver of the car that hit him did not stop to identify himself hence the checkpoints were put in place.Police tried locating the driver, but after two days, their attempts were futile. They then decided to erect the check points to obtain more information from motorists. Later on Robert Lidster, a random motorist who had no knowledge at all about the accident came to the check point and was asked to stop. He did stop and was questioned briefly.

However, he got fed up and started to drive away. In the process, he nearly hit a police officer. His car was swerving. The police officer noted Lidster’s erratic driving and asked for his license and registration. He was put under sobriety tests, which he did not pass. Subsequently, he was arrested for driving under the influence.The jury at the trial courts found Robert Lidster guilty and convicted him. However, the decision by the trial courts was reversed by the appellate court of Illinois.

The court found that, the roadblocks were clearly meant to get extra information on the ordinary crime that had been committed. Nonetheless, the court continued to say that seeking information is the duty of law enforcers that they must do without putting up check points. It came to the conclusion that even though the public wanted the evidence to the crime to be acquired, their interest for protection of their privacy rights outweighs the crime at hand. The Illinois Supreme Court was able to uphold the court’s decision and said the action could become a routine if allowed to continue.

In the same light as Lidster’s case, courts could be pushed to outlaw the checkpoints in Washington given the fact that the police should carry out their own investigation without interfering with people’s privacy.ReferencesFiebig J. (2010), Police Checkpoints: Lack of Guidance from the Supreme Court Contributes To Disregard of Civil Liberties in the District of Columbia retrieved from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=courts%20rationale%20in%20illinois%20v.%20lidster&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.northwestern.

edu%2Fjclc%2Fbackissues%2Fv100%2Fn2%2F1002_599.Fiebig.pdf&ei=nuwZT534MILOrQfH0dnWDQ&usg=AFQjCNGgpXidG5Rn8UQGvXtDDAC3BOrGEANickelsberg J. E. (2005) Illinois v. Lidster: Continuing to Carve out Constitutional Vehicle Checkpoints Chicago: Northwestern University.Cretacci M. A. (2007) Supreme Court Case Briefs in Criminal Procedure Chicago: Rowman & Litfield