I do not drink or use drugs and have nothing to fear from being stopped by a roadblock. Nevertheless, I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's decision barring the use of roadblocks to check motorists who may be driving drunk.

May is my concern. Law enforcement should never ever be allowed to detain a person just because he might be doing something wrong.

We live in a free country, folks. When I was young, I heard that being stopped was something the communists did to their citizens. Twenty or 30 years ago, we would have laughed at the idea of being stopped. It isn't a laughing matter now. It is here.

By allowing this tactic to continue, we are, in effect, endorsing this behavior.

Should the greater good come by way of the deterioration of our rights? No.

Now, what about seat belts?

Michael C. Wilson

Evansville

To the editor:

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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, and the persons or things to be seized.

Upon reading this, is there any question that the random roadblocks recently barred by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals were unconstitutional?

I cannot imagine a more obvious violation of our Bill of Rights. Yet three of our Supreme Court justices dissented and ruled that such police tactics were allowable.

Thomas Jefferson warned us of allowing such infringements on our liberty: The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.

Thank goodness for groups such as the Libertarian Party and for Libertarians such as Joell Palmer, plaintiff in this monumental Supreme Court case, who strive to keep the foundations of the social compact intact despite those who diligently try to chisel away at it while so many just stand and watch.

Let us not forget how fortunate we are as Americans to enjoy the freedoms and protections guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. God forbid we should ever let them be stripped from us.

Dan Moit

Evansville

To the editor:

Roadblocks should not be used by police. They are an intrusion and an ominous statement about the condition of our country.

It is a false and absurd analogy to believe that everyone's civil liberties must be curtailed because of the conduct of some people.

Make no mistake about it: The result is the curtailing of civil liberties for all.

The use of armed policemen with trained attack dogs at roadblocks to stop and inspect citizens leads to some obvious comparisons with countries under martial law or with totalitarian governments.

This is more alarming than the crime or accident rate.

There is an insidious McCarthyism in the attitude of proponents of these tactics of law enforcement. They contend that if you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear, and that you should not mind being stopped. I do mind.

It is an offensive indictment of all citizens to presume that if we are driving home after midnight on a weekend or holiday, we need to be checked by police.

Police have a difficult job to do, and they have to deal with a lot of very bad and brainless people.

We expect people who commit crimes, whether by accident or design, to be arrested, charged and dealt with through the court system. This is not easily done.

However, social problems and the crime rate are not sufficient cause for overzealous law enforcement.

Linda Powell