On the surface, it looks like a nice gesture toward East Lansing residents from city officials and police.
But it brings into question the very nature of law enforcement.
The City Council approved Tuesday an amendment to East Lansing law that allows individuals to refuse breath analysis tests, or Breathalyzers, without fear of a fine or ticket. The revised law doesn't apply when people are driving motor vehicles.
According to the East Lansing Police Department, or ELPD, optional breath analysis tests have been a procedure of the department for more than two years.
Amending the law just seems to be an afterthought to the ELPD's implementation of the practice.
The change in the law seems like the right thing to do. It gives rights back to individuals and protects their privacy.
But before the change, many people probably didn't even know they had the option to refuse a Breathalyzer. And they probably wouldn't have if they had depended on the local law being up-to-date.
Anyone who knows they've done something illegal should expect to get caught and suffer the consequences as outlined within laws.
But for police to establish a new procedure, which doesn't enforce an established law, is alarming.
Can police ignore laws for what is considered a "better idea?"
More importantly, do police have the right to make judgment calls about laws on a case-by-case basis or should they uphold the law as it is written?
When drivers go more than the speed limit by one or two miles per hour, which is against the law, police officers must understandably make a choice: Do they spend their time with a driver who is driving slightly over the limit or do they wait for that vehicle going 10 or 15 miles over the limit?
But what if a drunk 18-year-old who knew the old law, before the change took effect, were given the chance by a police officer to refuse a Breathalyzer? Would they listen to the officer and risk violating the law? Or would they follow the law and end up taking a test for no reason?
Residents should not be put in a situation where they must decide between a law and a police officer's word.
Law enforcement should do just that — enforce laws, not create them.
