http://constitution.org/powright.htm
^ Here is an excellent link for anyone to review. Human beings have an innate propensity of misconstruing and Americans are not an exception to that tendency. Case in point: individual
citizenship and
natural rights are not exclusively the same thing.
Citizens have the right of privacy, but only to the extent that their privacy does not violate the rights of
others. "Others" (e.g. fellow citizens) have the right to not be injured or killed.
Both drunk drivers and sober drivers have the right of privacy. Neither have immunity of using their right of privacy as justification for injuring or killing their fellow citizens.
Thus, the question becomes,
"How does one protect one right from being violated by another right?"
While flawed, sobriety checkpoints are the answer in the case of drunk driving. They are not flawed because of their intent, which is valid. They are flawed due the potential of human beings (e.g. police officers) who would abuse their power and corrupt a sobriety checkpoint's intent.
In other words, if the people in charge of a sobriety checkpoint are doing their jobs correctly, they are part of the solution of protecting everyone's natural rights as citizens. When those same people subvert its basis, they become the problem and violate the same rights they proclaim to protect.
The Constitution of the United States was created as a foundation of law for all of its citizens. In their infinite wisdom, the Constitution's founders fused it with the ability to grow, change and adapt as the country it governs matures throughout its lifetime. By association, it influences law at every judicial level beneath it.
What does this mean? Well, the founding fathers knew they could not foresee every probable violation of natural rights which they hoped their descendents would encounter in the days, weeks, months, decades and centuries to follow. Perhaps James Madison or Benjamin Franklin were psychics, who looked into the future, saw citizens in automobiles (not horse-and-buggies) colliding with fellow citizens, maiming or killing them due to their own intoxication. Perhaps not. It does not matter. They were wise enough to leave the tools behind for dealing with such topics.
Back to the OP.
The driver had the right to act as he did because he was not drunk.
The officers had the right to stop him
at a sobriety checkpoint to insure the rights of other drivers were not violated by drunk drivers.
It's a wash in the end, but it should be noted that the driver's refusal to answer, what may have been one question only, slowed the process down longer than necessary. The delay may have been caused simply to exploit the situation later, since the driver posted the video for public consumption.
If that small delay allowed, by consequence, even a single drunk driver to avoid that checkpoint and he or she caused a later accident, the accident itself cannot be blamed on the officers manning the checkpoint. It would have been the fault of the driver solely.
That would have been a grievous error on the driver's part. Does refusing to provide a simple answer justify should callousness? Who truly knows? And better yet, who truly cares?
