There is a strong principled argument in favor of Rep. Rick Becker’s, R-Bismarck, primary sponsorship of HB 1442. HB 1442 would stop law enforcement officers from conducting scheduled DUI checkpoints in which all drivers on the road are stopped for questioning.

The principled argument is that DUI checkpoints create concerns about personal liberty and how DUI checkpoints might infringe on the Fourth Amendment. Now the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the constitution. However, 10 state constitutions specifically prohibit them and they are not conducted in all states.

Becker has advanced similar legislation in 2015 and 2017, accentuating the appropriateness of checkpoints in a free society. There are certainly ethical questions about random stops of drivers with no probably cause. One can imagine this practice will face additional legal challenges and another Supreme Court majority might feel differently.

Becker and other advocates should be praised for their defense of individual liberty – even though the measures did not win with the North Dakota Legislature.

However, the case for HB 1442 is not being made on principled positions this time around. It’s being made on practical grounds, which while supported in part by statistics, is not tenable in policy sense.

According to North Dakota Newspaper Association legislative correspondent Diane Newberry, “This time around, Becker’s committee testimony focused solely on sobriety checkpoints as an inefficient procedure that should be prohibited in order to encourage other enforcement means. He acknowledged that law enforcement receives grant money through the Department of Transportation to conduct sobriety checkpoints, but he said this money is also available for conducting saturation patrols, in which a dedicated patrol focuses on stopping drivers who seem like they may be intoxicated.

“Russ Rader, with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said in an interview that ‘progress has largely stalled’ in combating drunk driving,” Newberry reported in a comprehensive analysis you can read here: www.minotdailynews.com/news/ local-news/2019/02/drunk-driving-checkpoints -test-personal-liberties/.

According to the report, the percent of alcohol-related crashes decreased annually between 2013 and 2016 but increased in 2017. The supposition is that there are better uses of anti-drunk driving funds than checkpoints. Opponents to the measure make a good counter argument that the most recent emphasis has been on more contemporary challenges such as texting and driving.

Minot Daily News is concerned with the ethics of checkpoints, but moreso with the problem of drunk driving. According to the North Dakota Department of Transportation, alcohol is a factor in 40 percent to 50 percent of fatal crashes in the state each year.

Thus, the argument of efficacy is a tough one to make.

Perhaps the approach should remain all of the above. Every effort helps save lives. Yes, edging personal freedoms is umcomfortable despite the current SCOTUS point of view. Should the courts declare checkpoints unconstitutional, then that should be the end of such practice.

However, until such time as the courts reverse themselves, there are simply not pragmatic arguments strong enough to support HB 1442.