Let's all remember that this great country was built on debate. Federalist versus Democratic-Republican (not a typo), Ford versus Chevy, Less Filling versus Tastes Great... our founding fathers excelled at intelligently articulating a viewpoint and responding to criticism of it. In fact, our whole system of representative government came to be because of an agreement known as the Great Compromise. If anyone remembers their history, there was quite a span between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So many viewpoints had to be taken into consideration in order to form a cohesive government, and it took thoughtful people willing to listen to arguments in direct opposition to their own and let those shape the system in order to make it happen. In the new world of winner take all, it's viewed as a weakness to admit an opponent's argument has validity. What a shame, because that's how great ideas are lost.
Back to the subject...
Let's see the 4th amendment in it's entirety:
"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."
When I read this, I see nothing that differentiates between public and private property. I take this to mean that without probable cause a checkpoint is in violation of the 4th amendment. Taking the public property viewpoint further, I also find bag searches entering public arenas to be in violation of it as well. However, when I have to forfeit a bag in order to view the event, then I guess that it's a choice I make; view the event by following the rules or go home.
The difference to me with a checkpoint is I don't have a choice. If I see a checkpoint coming and I choose to bypass or turn around, then that supposedly gives the LEO "reasonable suspicion" to detain me. If I choose to exercise my 4th amendment rights, then I suppose they could say I was resisting.
Here's a what-if: Let's say that I'm at a checkpoint and stone-cold sober. I refuse to roll down my window because I know that the police are using a passive sensor in their flashlight to detect alcohol vapor. I view this as being secure in my papers and effects, yet I'm sure it would be interpreted by the LEO that I'm hiding something which means he's free to yank me out of the car and search it. Do you see the slippery slope the checkpoint theory rests on? Where does it stop?
