The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

When I moved to Austin, Texas in 2008, I was in for a few rude surprises.

First, it’s not possible to move here and “become” a Texan, any more than it would be possible for Dick Cheney to move to Paris and become a Frenchman.

Second, Austin is a royal blue island in the otherwise scarlet sea of Texas. Tell someone in Austin that you voted for John McCain, and they’re likely to say, “What? Why?”, as if you’d announced you were moving to Oklahoma.

Third, whatever you may have heard, you may not drive around Texas with an open container of booze riding shotgun. No, for that you have to go to Wisconsin.

Zing!

Well, that’s the Badger State’s reputation, anyway—the place with the most lenient drunk-driving laws in the country. That will probably change next year, as legislators seem poised to agree upon, and Governor Doyle to sign, a bill that significantly toughens the state’s drinking-and-driving laws.

There are already complaints, however, that the new law won’t be tough enough. In particular, critics argue that the law ought to permit police to set up sobriety checkpoints, snaring impaired drivers like a grizzly picking off love-drunk salmon.

In my view, checkpoints flip the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing you to prove to the inquiring officer that you should be allowed to continue on your way. Beyond being mildly un-American, this situation is ripe for abuse.

Allow me to illustrate. Not long ago, I took a flight from Houston to London. About two-thirds of the way to the Houston airport, I needed to make a pit stop. I spotted an exit with a gas station, so I pulled off. At the first stop sign off the exit, I noticed a highway patrol car behind me. I also noticed a "Do Not Enter" sign posted on the road leading to the gas station. With a cop behind me, I figured I better not take any chances, so I went the opposite direction, planning to make a U-turn and get a better look at my options. But as soon as I turned, on came the blue-and-reds.

I didn't think I was speeding, so I wasn't anxious. Plus, I know that if you get pulled over, you should stay in the car, roll down your window, turn off your stereo, keep your hands on the wheel, and wait for instructions. That's what I did.

The officer asked for the normal information, went back to his car, came back to my car, asked where I was headed, asked why I had pulled off on that particular road, and then, finally, asked me to step outside of my car.

At that point, another cop showed up to facilitate what followed: My trunk was searched, my luggage was searched, and the rest of my car was searched. In fact, Cop #1 got all the way inside my car so that he could poke around, while Cop #2 made small talk with me. I was asked whether I was carrying any guns or other weapons, whether I was carrying any drugs, whether I'd had any trouble with the law before, and, just for good measure, what my Social Security number was.

I was polite and cooperative (I had a flight to catch), and ended up with just a warning for a minor violation. Naturally, though, I was curious as to why I had been treated with such suspicion. I asked, and the officer explained:

He's on the side of the road, and he sees me driving past with no front license plate (which, to my surprise, is illegal in Texas). He pulls up behind me, but then I immediately exit the interstate. (This was when I got off to hit the gas station; I had no idea he was behind me at that point.) So, there's one red flag. Then, when I'm at the first stop sign after the exit, I turn down a road that doesn't lead anywhere. (Not that I knew that; I was just trying to avoid entering a "Do Not Enter" road with a cop right behind me.)

That's two red flags. Then, when he asks me where I'm going, I say "Houston," but no one traveling from Austin to Houston would go the way I'm going, because it adds 30 miles to the trip. (Good to know for future reference...but I had never driven to Houston before and was following a Google maps printout.) That's three red flags, and I am now officially "suspicious." That explains everything that follows.

In the end, the cop said to me, "Because you were cooperative, I'm just going to give you a warning." I have to assume, therefore, that if I had said, politely and respectfully, "No, you may not look through my trunk, or my luggage, or the inside of my car without a search warrant, and no, I'm not going to give you my Social Security number," that I would have gotten a ticket, or worse. In other words, while I was free to exercise my rights, it would have cost me.

Does that seem acceptable to you? If so, you probably have no problem with sobriety checkpoints.

But I do. Though most people who are stopped at a checkpoint will not be impaired (even in beer- and brandy-loving Wisconsin), officers will be looking for evidence from everyone. Anyone who is less than completely deferential runs the risk of arousing officers’ suspicion. And anyone who does that may find themselves in the situation I faced on the road to Houston.

Most people reading this will say, “Well, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you might as well cooperate.”
Sure. I’ll be nice to the grizzly bear, and maybe he won’t eat me.

-November 30, 2009

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.