An Open Letter to Dan Morris
Dear Mr. Morris,
It is with deep respect, admiration, and sincere brotherly love that I address you here. I have listened to you on WACV from the time you were a caller on The Don Markwell Show. Now you have your own show, and on FM no less; and you deserve it.
The way you carried yourself as you faced the trial of cancer inspired more people than you will ever know.
Your close working relationship with Ronald Reagan at such an historical time, and the genuine joy with which you relate some of those stories, takes those of us who remember back to a prouder time.
Your consistent soundness of reasoning and logic are a welcome relief to the silent mass of us frustrated by egocentric whims and rants of other talk show host, local and national.
As a semi-regular listener I find myself in agreement with you 99.38% of the time. At times I thought I disagreed with you, only to change my mind after listening to your perspective. I hope you know you have my respect, and that of many others who will never call in, write an email, or approach you in public.
###
I guess it is my admiration and feeling of philosophical kinship that caused such a visceral reaction when I listened to your show last Monday, June 22, 2009. On the subject of Police Checkpoints you expressed your enthusiastic approval. I could not believe my ears, Dan Morris!!! My Radio Hero!!! How could he be so right on so much to miss this one so bad?
Police checkpoints, at the very least, compromise the spirit of the constitution, definitely feed into the illusion of racism and oppression, and, at worst, condition a dependant peoples to sacrifice basic liberty for imagined security.
I have been stopped by no less than four checkpoints, two in the city of Montgomery, and two in Elmore County conducted by Alabama State Troopers (This is not JUST a Montgomery, Alabama issue).
All four times I presented my papers, proved I was a law abiding citizen, and was allowed to pass citation free. All four times I felt violated as a citizen of the United States.
The last time I was stopped. I had my papers held out the window as I approached the officer. With a laugh he said, “Ah, someone who knows the rules of engagement.” And he waved me on with a smile. The word “engagement” enraged me. But it was accurate.
I joined the Marine Corps in 1984, inspired by your old boss. I am sure you remember the mindset of that time. We were at the height of the cold war. Mother Russia was the diametric opposite of everything America stood for. Communism was threatening our existence and freedom as we knew it.
We were constantly told of how oppressive the KGB was. As a free people we could not imagine the lack of freedom afforded the people of Russia. These poor people did not even have the most basic freedom. They could not travel freely within their own borders without government harassment. “Do you have your papers?”(Read with bad Russian accent)
My, how far we have come. I only wonder how far we will go. How much individual liberty are we willing to give up in the name of the common good? Is the water hot enough to jump out? Or do we cook a bit longer?
Please indulge me as I address a few of the arguments and points I have heard on your show. I respect your time and will attempt to be brief.
If you have nothing to hide it should not bother you.
This argument floors me. I hear it so often. This argument isn’t just flawed, it is dangerous. What happens if that argument is followed to its’ logical conclusion?
It would extend to home searches. You know we have a big meth problem out there. What should you care if the nice officers want to look through your house with their cute little puppy? It is for the public good. You have nothing to hide. You want them to catch the drug dealers, don’t you?
It would extend to searches of your person, on public sidewalks, in shopping centers. This reasoning has no limit, and therefore can’t be used as a reliable basis of opinion.
Is it constitutional?
I am not a constitutional scholar; I do not know that checkpoints are blatantly unconstitutional, I have read well thought out opinions on both sides. I believe they are. At the very least I feel they violate the spirit of the fourth amendment.
“The right of 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…”
What is implied by “unreasonable”? To me it simply means without reason. What is the reason I am being stopped and asked for my papers? Do you have probable cause to believe I do not have insurance or a license? Has a circumstance arisen, such as an accident or traffic violation, which I need to prove my compliance? Do I give up my right to be secure in my person and papers just because I am on a public street?
Again, compelling valid arguments can be made both ways. But in matters of personal liberty I would rather err on the side of freedom, even if a bit of security is lost.
As a Marine I swore an oath, not to the President, the flag, the government, or even the people, but to the United States Constitution. She is a living breathing document; her spirit is the foundation of all that is great about this country. We should not tolerate even the appearance of her violation.
They are PUBLIC roads/A privilege not a right!
They are public roads, and who is the public? WE ARE, and we have the right to travel those roads harassment free.
As a collective we have agreed on the need for certain rules, restrictions, and guidelines for using these roads. And we have agreed that certain rule violations can result in the loss of the right to use them (due process).
We have empowered fellow citizens to enforce these rules. While we have given them tremendous power over us; we have restricted what they are, and are not, allowed to do. We regulate the regulators, checks and balances.
One thing we do not allow is for Enforcement Officers to stop people randomly, without cause. They must observe evidence of wrongdoing. They must have reason to engage, search, or even question. Otherwise would be unreasonable.
If they are justified in stopping us to check our compliance with the rules of operators license and proof of insurance; why not others, or all?
Why not breathalyzers, vehicle searches, safety inspections? Why not plug into our GPS systems to see how fast we’ve been going? Why not field dexterity test and visual exams for older drivers? They are public roads, it is a privilege, not a right, it’s for the public good. Why not?
Why Checkpoints? Why not pull over randomly?
Engagement is engagement. It does not matter if I am pulled over by flashing lights, or happen into the checkpoint trap. [All four checkpoints I have experienced were set up in such a way that you could not avoid them once you saw them. I made a u-turn approaching one on Michigan Ave. in Chisolm, decided to hit the curb market on Lower Wetumpka, an officer stopped me in the store parking lot. It appears I raised suspicion, gave them probable cause, by making a legal u-turn. He checked my papers, apologized, and returned to protecting and serving.]
Checkpoints reduce crime?
Like most things surrounding the subject, I have found statistics and opinions that support both sides. Some say they work wonders, others indicate they are a complete waste of resources. Regardless of your feeling, you can find statistics to back you up.
Personally, I don’t care if they reduce crime or not. I doubt they do. But even if they provide a marginal increase in public safety, it is not worth the erosion of personal liberty.
I do know that every checkpoint I have witnessed had a minimum of three squad cars and no less than five officers. I have seen as many as seven squad cars, a SUV, and at least a dozen uniformed officers.
I can’t help but believe if I were given those resources, I could come up with a more effective use of their time. Or maybe things have changed. Maybe they have gotten rid of the prostitutes on Mobile Highway, maybe the crack dealers have all been dealt with, all outstanding warrants have been served, maybe they have stopped speeding on Vaughn and Taylor.
Perhaps, all the real crime has been solved, and this is the most important thing those who vow to protect and serve have to do. I am sure freeing these officers to do justifiable police work would have no affect on crime, public safety, or response times.
Checkpoints are racially motivated?
Please allow me a side note, to my brothers and sisters who view this as an issue of race. I understand your perspective. I feel the sincerity of your outrage. Please, I beg you please, “STOP crying racism!”
This is NOT a racial issue. Like so many other apparent injustices dealt to the black community, checkpoints are not racially motivated. They are strictly directed by economics.
They will never admit this. They will cry out public safety. But make no mistake, it is about revenue. The selection of where is not based on racial targets, but economic.
They specifically target those on the lower end of the economic ladder, black, white, yellow and pink polka dotted people. Justice is blind to color, but lays heavy on the poor.
The fact is that people who have stuff insure themselves. They have much to loose. It is in their best interest to protect their assets. And these people, who have stuff, and insure their stuff, can even insure themselves from loss caused by an uninsured person, who ain’t got no stuff. (Imagine that, self-reliance, “I take care of me instead of the government doing it for me.”)
A poor person, black or white, who has nothing, will choose to pay rent, buy food, and maybe get a six-pack, over insuring that he does not loose his nothing.
Poor people have to juggle their budgets to renew licenses, get insurance, get a new tag, or see a doctor. They are the ones who get victimized by these checkpoints. They are the ones who go further into debt to pay fines for not having the basics they could not afford to begin with, and the cycle continues.
It is a struggle of economics, not race. There are more poor whites than poor blacks, and they suffer the same injustices. They may not be as large a percentage of their race, and they may live in more sprawled out rural areas, but they are your brothers and sisters in the struggle.
By seeing things as they are, whites and blacks can join forces and gain far greater freedom than imagined. By buying into the illusion of racism they are divided, weakened, and in need of more protection. The illusion supports itself, grows itself, and makes itself appear to be real.
###
Mr. Morris, I understand that you were hit by a drunk driving illegal alien who had no insurance or driver’s license. I hope this personal experience of injustice is not what has shaded your view. All the checkpoints in the world will not stop these tragedies.
If the person who hit you had been stopped at a checkpoint the day before he hit you, it probably would have had no effect. They would not have taken him into custody, impounded his vehicle, or even detained him for Immigration.
They would have written him a couple of tickets, and turned their heads. It really appears to be more about income generation than public safety, at least to me.
I called my insurance agent to verify, and wanted to pass this on as well. Even if that man had a license and insurance, you could still be out of luck. Your insurance policy has a clause that voids coverage if you are committing a bad act, such as DUI, commission of a crime, willful intent to do harm, and so on.
Yea, it sucks that I need to carry uninsured motorist coverage on my car. If everyone would obey the rules I wouldn’t need to. It also sucks that I have to insure my car and household possessions against theft, only if everyone would follow the rules.
Thank you for your indulgence. Regardless of your continued stance on this matter, know that you have my respect, admiration, and prayers for your continued good health.
Simper Fi,
Langston Wilson
