Discussion Question-Law class Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Discussion Question-Law class - Essay Example The motorists whose papers are in order are allowed entry into the neighborhood. Nonetheless, no pedestrians are stopped for frisking. The United States Supreme Court in its responsibility, has failed to provide the guidance necessary to ensure that law enforcing officials, and local authorities, refrain from putting up checkpoints in high crime rate areas. These check points are illegal because they invade people’s privacy that is protected by the fourth amendment of the constitution. The failure of the appellate court has led to the continuation of this practice. Soon enough, it may become a routine in most U.S cities. However, with proper guidance, this can be stopped and the checkpoints will be illegal. In the case, Illinois V Lidster; the Supreme Court was facing a dilemma once again regarding check points. However, this time around authorities were not stopping vehicles in an attempt to curb crime rates but were doing so to interrogate motorists about a driver who had caused an accident (hit-and-run driver) and was at large. Joseph Pytel was the victim. He had been hit by a car when he was riding his bike. The driver of the car that hit him did not stop to identify himself hence the checkpoints were put in place. Police tried locating the driver, but after two days, their attempts were futile. They then decided to erect the check points to obtain more information from motorists. Later on Robert Lidster, a random motorist who had no knowledge at all about the accident came to the check point and was asked to stop. He did stop and was questioned briefly. However, he got fed up and started to drive away. In the process, he nearly hit a police officer. His car was swerving. The police officer noted Lidster’s erratic driving and asked for his license and registration. He was put under sobriety tests, which he did not pass. Subsequently, he was arrested for driving under the influence. The jury at the trial courts found Robert Lidster guilty