Jamie Spencer was in-line skating at a Bay City park when police made her take a Breathalyzer test in August 2001. The 19-year-old had not been drinking alcohol, but was forced to choose between taking the test or paying a $100 fine.

The question of whether police actions like this are constitutional has been debated as the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit last week, which challenges police to obtain a search warrant before forcing such tests on pedestrians under 21.

Individuals should have the right to privacy and freedom from unnecessary procedure, and it seems Spencer’s rights were violated. Giving the choice of taking the test or paying an expensive fine is offensive for her, and those who are put in similar situations, this choice seems to violate privacy rights.

If individuals are acting appropriately in their environment, as is seems Spencer was, random Breathalyzer testing appears to be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unwarranted search and seizure.

This is important grounds for debate at college campuses, such as MSU, where thousands of people walking on the street to attend various weekend social events.

That is one reason why the MSU’s Task Force on Student-Police relations created a list last spring of “reasonable causes” for police to administer the test. The list included bloodshot eyes, unruly behavior, vomiting and slurred speech. And East Lansing police have stopped making students line up for Breathalyzers when busting parties.

But the category of “reasonable cause” needs to fall into a gray area as far as pedestrians are concerned. While situations like Spencer’s are at one extreme of the spectrum, requiring search warrants are at the other.

Essentially, if a pedestrian appears to be a danger to themselves or others, police ought to have the right to intervene. There could be lives at stake.