To the editor,

The recent article, “DUII unit on the job in Seneca” raises troubling questions about the lengths law enforcement will go to arrest and prosecute intoxicated drivers. On Memorial Day weekend, police conducted traffic stops of 90 motorists, putting a damper on the usually festive Seneca Oyster Feed. The Oregon State Police was promoting its “DUII Mobile Processing Unit” designed to expedite processing of drunk driving violations. They succeeded in arresting three alleged drunk drivers.

I applaud law enforcement for taking unsafe drivers off the street. I believe alcohol-impaired drivers (remember it is not illegal to drink some alcohol and drive) should be held accountable for the public safety risk they create by their carelessness. But what happens when our overzealous pursuit of drunk drivers infringes on the constitutional rights of innocent motorists?

Our Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection extends not just to home invasions, but traffic stops as well. To lawfully stop a vehicle, police must have probable cause, a traffic violation occurred or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Ninety (90) motorists were stopped and interrogated over the holiday weekend. Most of these drivers were released without receiving a citation, but still forced to endure the unpleasant and often traumatic experience of a police encounter. Only three drivers were actually arrested for DUII.

This police crackdown reminds me of the DUII roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints used in other states, but prohibited in Oregon. Commonly, law enforcement agencies set up roadblocks on highways to question and observe drivers for signs of impairment. While I acknowledge no such roadblock or checkpoint was officially used here, police actions came strikingly close. The sheer number of citizens stopped in relation to the population raises suspicion as to the validity of these stops.

In addition to extreme measure used to stop impaired drivers, our laws increasingly make it easier to get a conviction in DUII cases. We convict drivers routinely on evidence from unreliable and unscientific breath test machines. Thanks to special interest lobbyists and political pressure from organizations like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), most states now allow a conviction if a breath test result is .08 or higher, regardless of whether the driver is actually impaired. Not only have we made it easier to convict, we have imposed mandatory penalties. Jail time, fines in excess of $1,000 and lengthy license suspensions are required sanctions for even first time offenders. Whereas most crimes can be cleared from your records in three years (even felonies like burglary, robbery and theft), not with DUII. Traffic crimes stay on your record for life, affecting one’s ability to get jobs and housing.

We all know the dangers imposed by impaired drivers, but fundamental consitutional protections are too often disregarded or overlooked in the name of DUII.

Donald J. Molnar, attorney

Portland