Last week the Oxford Mail described a police operation at a pub in Bicester that customers seemed to take in stride: Cops swabbed the palms of patrons entering the bar and tested their sweat for traces of drugs; anyone with residue "above the background level" was searched. Police found no drugs on two people who tested positive but banned them from the pub anyway. There were no arrests. Det. Sgt. Steve Duffy of Banbury CID pronounced the dragnet a smashing success:
It went very well. We gained the full co-operation of the management and the customers.
Everyone was very supportive and compliant....
The public were very supportive. Many people were saying they wanted to be tested.
I'd like to think that red-blooded, freedom-loving American drinkers would have been less "supportive," but I'm not sure. Still, under current law police in this country would have a harder time justifying a drug checkpoint for pedestrians than police in the U.K., where the practice seems to be uncontroversial. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld sobriety roadblocks for drivers, but in that situation there is a clearer public safety justification, and police are supposed to demand a breath test only if they detect signs of drunkenness such as slurred speech or the smell of alcohol. Given the Court's ruling that a once-over by a drug-detecting dog does not constitute a search because it reveals nothing but the presence of contraband, however, it's hard to see why a sweat test for illegal drugs should count as a search. Touching someone's palm with a cotton swab is marginally more invasive than walking a dog around his car, I suppose, but in both cases only the guilty have anything to worry about, right?
Julian Sanchez explored the issues raised by such "pinpoint searches" in the January issue of reason.